JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the respondent dated March 25, 2000 retiring the petitioner compulsorily under Regulation 57(a)(i) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1965 (for short 1965 Regulations) on completion of 25 years of service and attaining age of 50 years. 2. The main questions debated at the bar by the learned counsel are whether it was incumbent upon the respondent to pay three months' notice salary and allowances along with the order of compulsory retirement and whether there was any justification in passing the order of compulsory retirement on the basis of available material? 3. The petitioner averred in the writ petition that he has not become dead wood and his service record of the last 10 years is not bad except two minor penalties which do not reflect on his integrity and efficiency. The impugned order of retirement is illegal as three months salary in lieu of notice was not paid along with the order. Though it was mentioned in the order that cheque is enclosed but no such cheque was received by the petitioner. 4. In the reply submitted by the respondent it was stated that there exist number of adversities in the service record of the petitioner. The petitioner has not come with clear hands before this court as he has suppressed the fact of imposition of punishment on him regarding stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect and forfeiture of salary of suspension period vide order dated August 16, 1982. It was also pleaded that the petitioner has a problem with his tongue and he is not in a position to speak properly that is causing difficulty in the administration and the respondent has to depute one additional official of the rank of the petitioner to carry out the work entrusted to the petitioner. In respect of pleading of non payment of three months salary it was pleaded that the impugned order of retirement as well as cheque of three months salary and allowances was despatched to the petitioner through the registered post on March 25, 2000 and a second copy of the order was served on the petitioner by hand, therefore, the compliance of Regulation 57(a)(i) of 1965 Regulations was made. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record. 6. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record. 6. Regulation 57(a)(i) of 1965 Regulations provides that an employee may, in the interest of Corporation, be retired after he has attained the age of 50 years or on the date he completes 25 years service whichever is earlier, or on any date thereafter by giving him 3 months notice in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu thereof. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to consider Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code which is pari materia to Regulation 57(a)(i) of 1965 Regulations, in State of Orissa v. Balkrishna Sathpathy ( AIR 1994 SC 1127 ) : [1993(8) SLR 395 (SC)] and it was indicated that "alternative mode prescribed of payment of the amount in lieu of three months notice, when adopted, entitled the Government servant to get the amount, but the validity of the order of compulsory retirement does not depend on its prior full payment as a pre-requisite. The only right of the Government servant under such an order is to get the amount of three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, and no more." 8. Raj Kumar v. U.O.I. ( AIR 1975 SC 1116 ) : [1974 SLWR 760 (SC)] was the case wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that payment of notice pay at the same time as service or tender of termination notice is not obligatory. 9. In Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Committee of Management (1996) 8 SCC 595 : 1996(2) SLR 609 (SC)] it was observed that "where the rule permits giving of pay in lieu of the notice of termination and does not further provide as to when the payment is to be made, it only entitles the employee to pay for the period of the notice and payment of notice pay cannot be regarded as a condition precedent to valid termination of service." 10. Division Bench of Delhi High Court in L.C. Bawa v. V.S. Kapoor (1987(5) SLR 575) however held that payment of three months pay in lieu of notice through undated cheque having been dishonoured by the bank on presentation tantamounts to non payment and subsequent rectification of the cheque does not cure the defect and on this score the order of compulsory retirement is invalid. 11. 11. In J.N. Sarkary v. Zonal Manager (1978(1) SLR 471) three months salary in lieu of notice was simultaneously paid with the order of compulsory retirement of the employee but other allowances were not paid, under these circumstances it was indicated by the Single Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court that order was bad and against the mandate of Regulation 22(2) of Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1976. 12. The principles that may be deduced from the above discussion is that validity of the order of compulsory retirement does not depend on its prior full payment as a pre-requisite. The only right of the Government servant is to receive the amount of three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice and no more. The petitioner in the instant case has not filed rejoinder or counter affidavit disputing the fact that impugned order of compulsory retirement along with the cheque of three months salary and allowances was not received by him through registered post. Therefore I find it difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that amount of three months salary and allowances in lieu of notice was not paid to him with the impugned order of compulsory retirement. 13. Coming to the second question it may be seen that whole purpose of framing Regulation 57(a) of 1965 Regulations is to weed out the worthless in the interest of the Corporation. It is well settled that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. Principles of natural justice have no role to play while passing of such order. Appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a Government servant if it is of the bona fide opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The order may be couched in innocuous language without incorporating any imputation against the Government servant. But if such order is challenged, the court in appropriate cases can lift the veil to find out (a) if there are mala fides; (b) whether it is based on no evidence; and (c) whether it is arbitrary as there is no material for forming an opinion to retire Government servant. 14. But if such order is challenged, the court in appropriate cases can lift the veil to find out (a) if there are mala fides; (b) whether it is based on no evidence; and (c) whether it is arbitrary as there is no material for forming an opinion to retire Government servant. 14. On close scrutiny of material on record following undisputed facts are established- (i) Vide order dated August 16, 1982 punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect and forfeiture of salary of suspension period, was imposed on the petitioner. (ii) Vide order dated August 18, 1992 the petitioner was censured. (iii) Vide order dated November 6, 1993 punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner was charge sheeted on November 20, 1998 for causing loss of Measurement Book. The inquiry is pending. (v) The petitioner was charge sheeted on July 12, 1990 for having entered into second marriage during the life time of his first wife. The enquiry is pending. (vi) The petitioner had undergone the treatment of cancer. He had some problem in his tongue and was operated upon. Even after operation he is still having slight problem in his speech. Treatment of speech therapy is still continuing. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1990 SC 1368 ) and cavassed that impugned order of retirement cannot but be said to have been made by way of punishment but I am not impressed by the submission. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.E. Reddy (1980) 2 SCC 15 :[1979(2) SLR 792 (SC)] propounded that- (Para 9) "It is now well settled by a long catena of authorities of this court that compulsory retirement after the employee has put in a sufficient number of years of service having qualified for full pension is neither a punishment nor a stigma so as to attract the provisions of Article 31 1(2) of the Constitution." Judgment Ram Ekbal Sharma (supra) was delivered by Bench of Hon'ble Two Judges whereas three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baikunth Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer ( 1992 (2) SCC 299 ) : [1992(2) SLR 2 (SC)] , indicated that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of mis-behaviour. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited Laloo Prasad v. U.O.I. (1992 (5) SLR 781) and urged that compulsory retirement of the petitioner on the charge that he contracted second marriage without affording an opportunity of hearing is violative of rules of natural justice. Case of Laloo Prasad (supra) is distinguishable. In that case it was specifically mentioned in the order that "petitioner is being compulsorily retired from service due to contracting with plural marriage without divorcing his first wife." Learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court under those circumstances held that stigma was apparent on the fact of the order, the giving of a hearing was a must. In the instant case no such allegation is levelled in the impugned order against the petitioner. 17. I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no material on record which could show mala fides on the part of the respondent in passing the impugned order. I am satisfied that the respondent after bona fide scanning of available material and looking to the interest of Corporation, formed opinion to compulsory retire the petitioner. 18. I find no merit in the writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******