JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff is the Appellant against reversing judgment. He has filed the suit for a declaration that the order dtd. 31.12.84 as per Annexure-4 to the plaint retiring the Plaintiff prematurely is void, illegal and for injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 4 permanently from giving effect to the order in Annexure-A as well as Annexure-B to the plaint. 2. The case of the Plaintiff in brief is that he joined the Defendant company as a Station Master on 1.1.1951. He was promoted to the post of Head Clerk on 1.1.1961 and was promoted as Head Assistant on 1.11.1968. He was further promoted to the post of Jr. Head Assistant on 24.12.1971 and he was also given further promotion as P.A. to the Managing Director on 21.9.1972. With effect from 3.7.1980 he was appointed as P.A. (technical) and thereafter worked as Officer-on-Special Duty. His date of birth being 1.7.1931 instead of allowing him to continue till date of superannuation he was put under compulsory retirement at the age of 53 years vide order dtd 31.12.84. The allegation made in the plaint is that the incumbent who was working as P.A. (Technical) from 3.7.1980 in a lower scale of pay bore a personal grudge towards the Plaintiff as he was interested to continue against permanent post which the Plaintiff was holding and in order to achieve his objectives he took help of one of the Unions namely, the Orissa Sadaka Paribahana Sramika Congress and instigated the said Union for publish a leaf-let containing allegation against the Plaintiff and got them circulated at different levels resulting in a vigilance enquiry against the Plaintiff. In the mean time one M.M. Rath joined as Managing Director during July. 1933. As per practice the Plaintiff as Officer-in-special duty was required to place various tiles and proposals etc. submitted by the Managing Director before the Chairman and due to such practice the Managing Director expressed his displeasure and annoyance over the Plaintiff. The Managing Director and his P.A. who were inimical to the Plaintiff played mischief in misrepresenting facts of the service records of the Plaintiff and obtained an order of premature retirement vide Annexure-A to the plaint inspite of favourable recommendations of the Review Committee No. 1 in Exts. 12 & 13 and in violation of the rules governing premature retirement of the employees of O.R.T. Company. 12 & 13 and in violation of the rules governing premature retirement of the employees of O.R.T. Company. On these allegations the suit was filed for the declaration as stated above. 3. The Defendants filed the written statement and resisted the suit basically on two grounds. The first objection taken in the written statement is with regard to maintainability of the suit on the ground that dispute relates to a service matter and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The second objection raised in the written statement is that the order of premature retirement having been passed in terms of the rules of the company and after following the procedure prescribed under the rules, there was no scope for the civil Court to interfere with the same. 4. The trial Court framed 6 issues and issue Nos. 4 and 5 relate to maintainability of the suit as well as jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining the suit. On consideration of the pleadings and referring to decision of different High Courts the trial Court held that, the suit is maintainable and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue in dispute. Issue No. 3 relates to legality of the order of premature retirement and referring to the C.C.Rs, of the Plaintiff, the Review Committee reports and the rules governing the field of premature retirement the trial Court held that the order of premature retirement is illegal, cannot be acted upon and unenforceable. The trial Court having declared the order of premature/retirement to be illegal and unenforceable, further directed that the Plaintiff would be deemed to be continuing in service and shall be entitled to the back wages w.e.f. 01.1.85 till the date ha would have retired on superannuation. The aforesaid judgment of the trial Court was challenged by the Defendants 1 to 4 in appeal before the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Ganjam. Though the learned lower appellate Court agreed with the trial Court that the suit was maintainable and the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit reversed the finding so far as the legality of the order of premature retirement is concerned and consequently set as the judgment. The Appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in which the suit filed by him has, been dismisses 5. The Appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in which the suit filed by him has, been dismisses 5. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law for adjudication. A. As to whether Clause 1(c) of the Statutory Rules. Governing the premature retirement of the employees of the Orissa Road Transport Company (Exhibit - 10-A), which provides that an employees seeking to retire voluntarily after completion of 30 years of service or after attaining an age of 50 years, can do so by serving a notice to the employer at least three months prior to the date on which the employees wishes to retire, has to be construed that an employee who desire to continue in his service unto his normal age of superannuation i.e. 58 years and does not wish to retire earlier between 50 and 58 years of age shall have to give option for such continuance in service. B. As to whether Clause 1(c) of Ext. 10-A leads to a conclusion that if an employee does not give any option after attaining 50 years of age and/or 30 years of qualifying service, his services becomes discretionary and the employer may or may not allow him to continue. C. As to whether Rule 2(a) of Ext. 10-A stipulated that the right to office of an employee ceases after attaining 50 years of age or after completion of 30 years of qualifying service and whether the employer derives the right to give further continuance or extension of service as its discretion, although the normal age of superannuation is fixed at 58 years. D. As to whether Rule 1(a) of the Rules (Exhibit - 10-A) gives absolute right to an employer to prematurely retire an employee after completion of 30 years of service or after attaining 50 years of age without following the statutory review procedures as well as the guidelines prescribed in the rules. E. As to whether after giving promotion to the Plaintiff on 22.10.1981 as per exhibit-11 (with retrospective effect from 30.6.61) i.e. after the Plaintiff completed 50 years of age on 1.7.1981, the Defendants were entitled to pass an order of premature retirement in the absence of any exceptional reasons such as subsequent work or conduct or state of physical health as provided under Rule 1(b) of the Rules (Ext. 10-A) Shri Panigrahi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant challenged the findings of the lower appellate Court on the following grounds. (i) The past C.C.Rs, of the Appellant are good and there is no adverse entry in the past C.C.Rs. (ii) The rules relating premature retirement have not been followed and inspite of good C.C.Rs, and recommendations on the Review Committee to allow the Plaintiff to continue in service, no order directing premature retirement could be passed. (iii) The only ground on which the order of premature retirement has been passed is pendency of a vigilance enquiry and mere pendency of vigilance enquiry cannot be a ground for coming to a conclusion that integrity of an employee against whom such an enquiry is pending is doubtful and so long the delinquent is not found guilty, the allegation made in the vigilance enquiry cannot be the basis for premature retirement. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents supported the findings of the lower appellate Court and submitted that the order of premature retirement is in terms of the rules of the company after following all the procedures prescribed. There being no illegality in the order of premature retirement, the trial Court was not justified to hold the same to be illegal and unenforceable and the over appellate Court correctly interpreted the rules and dismissed the suit 7. Keeping in mind the substantial questions of law on which the appeal has been admitted and the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties t think it desirable to refer to some department proceedings which had been initiated against the Plaintiff while serving in the company from the record it appears that the Plaintiff was placed under suspension on the change on gross misconduct and misappropriation of company's property in office order No. 336 dt. 7.1.69 and proceedings were drawn up against him However, he was reinstated in service pending disposal of the proceedings. Ext. 25 indicates that the proceedings were dosed treating the period of suspension as leave due without any punishment and the following observations were made: I am to observe in this connection mat had the preliminary enquiries been gone through in detail, the action for placing Sri Sahu under suspensions would have been soared these enquiries. The period should be treated as leave due. Proceedings closed. The period should be treated as leave due. Proceedings closed. Again-the Plaintiff was suspended for gross negligence in duty and proceedings were drawn against him in the year 1971. In the said proceeding the period of his suspension was treated as duty and he was warned to avoid such carelessness in future. In this connection Ext. 24 may be referred to The Plaintiff was also placed under suspension in the year 1974 and he was reverted to lower post to work as Office Superintendent wide order dtd. 14.5.1975 on appeal be was taken to his former post as P.A. to Managing Director treating the period of suspension as on duty. He was given a warning vide Ext 26. The Plaintiff was is again placed under suspension in connection with the vigilance report and proceedings were drawn up as per Ext. 14. In the disciplinary proceeding, charges could not be proved and the suspension was treated as period on duty without any punishment vide Ext 15. From the above it appears that the Plaintiff was put under suspension four times i.e. in the year. 1969. 1971, 1974 and lastly in the vigilance case. Further it appears that even after closure of the proceeding in the year 1969 he was-given promotion in the year 1971 to the post of Junior Head Assistant which is evident from Ext. 19. Though Anr. proceeding was drawn up against him in March 1971 and he was let off with a warning he was given promotion to the cost of P.A. to Managing Director on 21.9.1972 vide Ext. 20. The proceeding that was drawn up in the year 1974 ended with a punishment but in appeal the same was set aside and he was only given a warning vide Ext. 26. However, thereafter he was appointed as P.A (Technical) and subsequently was also allowed work as officer-on-special duty. In view of the promotions given even after culmination of the disciplinary proceedings the same cannot be taken into consideration and stand wiped of for the purpose considering continuance of the Plaintiff in service. So far as C.C.Rs, are concerned I would like to quote the C.C.Rs, from the year 1969-70 till the year 1983-84. The C.C.Rs, for the aforesaid period are as follows: 1969-70 Intelligent, hardworking and an ungrudging worker who can well deliver the goods. So far as C.C.Rs, are concerned I would like to quote the C.C.Rs, from the year 1969-70 till the year 1983-84. The C.C.Rs, for the aforesaid period are as follows: 1969-70 Intelligent, hardworking and an ungrudging worker who can well deliver the goods. Eminently fit to shoulder higher responsibility 1970-71 My entry for the previous year holds good for this year also. 1971 He knows the job well and capable of delivering the goods. Thoroughly conversant with rules and regulations. Intelligent and hard working. 1972 He was transferred and posted as J.H.A. in M.D's office at a time when efficiently in work and discipline were seriously affected. Sri Sahu with his abilities and rich experience in the administration of O.R.T. Co. improved the tone of work discipline Undoubtedly. competent, prompt and knowledgeable. His work and conduct have been very satisfactory. 1973-74 Worked as PA. to M.D. throughout the year and gave a very good account of himself. Thoroughly conversant with departmental rules and procedure with a right experience of administrative matters. Prompt and efficient was an asset to me. 1975-76 Sincere and hard working. 1976-77, 77-78 An able Personal Assistant. 1978-79 79-80 An able Personal Assistant and a very knowledgeable Officer. He was recently been attached to the Chairman Office. 1980-81 He is a hand and is capable of doing any work relating to O.R.T. Co Quite hard working and energetic. He is knowledgeable about rules and regulations. 1981-82 His work about official rules and procedures standing orders etc. is very satisfactory. He is a capable officer and full of resource and initiative. His notings is quite good and can shoulder responsibility. Analytical and sincere. 1982-83 He has very good knowledge about working of the Orissa Road Transport Company and in matters relating to read transport operation. He is shrewd and well informed. He is good in doing liaison work. His integrity is under investigation by the Vigilance Organisation and has to be kept under watch till disposal of the same. 1983-84 He has good knowledge about functioning of the Company, rules and regulations relating to the M.V. Act and other allied matters. However, his doubtful integrity is under investigation of the Vigilance Department. His integrity is under investigation by the Vigilance Organisation and has to be kept under watch till disposal of the same. 1983-84 He has good knowledge about functioning of the Company, rules and regulations relating to the M.V. Act and other allied matters. However, his doubtful integrity is under investigation of the Vigilance Department. From the aforesaid C.C.Rs, it is clear that there was absolutely no adverse entry and the Plaintiff was found to be sincere and hard working and also it appears that he had good knowledge about working of the Orissa Road Transport Company and the matters relating to road transport operation. However, in the C.C.Rs, of 1982-83 and 1983-84 an observation is made that his integrity is under investigation by Vigilance Organisation and he has to be kept under watch till disposal of the same. While the matter stood thus, the order of compulsory retirement came. In view of the C.C.Rs, as indicated above the question that arise for consideration is whether merely because a Vigilance enquiry was pending against the Plaintiff he could be put under premature retirement on ground of doubtful integrity. From the record, it further appears that as provided in the rules a review committee considered the case of the Plaintiff after he attained the age of 50 years. The said review committee recommended continuance of the Plaintiff in service. Though there was no requirement of a second review committee before the Plaintiff attained the age of 55 years, his case was again considered when he was 51 years and the review committee also again recommended for his continuance in service. Inspite of the recommendations made by the review committee the order of compulsory retirement was passed. 9. Keeping in mind the above C.C.Rs, and the pending vigilance inquiry at the time of premature retirement, I think it necessary to refer to some decisions of this Court as well the Apex Court for reference. The Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and others Vs. Ram Chandra Das, laid down the guidelines which should be the basis for passing an order of premature retirement. The Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and others Vs. Ram Chandra Das, laid down the guidelines which should be the basis for passing an order of premature retirement. The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision held as follows: It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal position is that the Government is empowered and won; be entitled to compulsorily retire a Government servant in public interest with a view to improve efficiency of the administration or to weed out the people of doubtful integrity or corrupt but sufficient evidence was not available to take disciplinary action in accordance with the rules so as to inculcate a sense of discipline in the service. But the Government before taking such decision to retire a Government employee compulsorily from service, have to consider the entire record of the Government servant including the latest reports. 10. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel the Apex Court again laid down 8 guidelines to be observed before an order of premature retirement is passed. The said guidelines are as follows: (i) When the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead-wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer is given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure. 11. (vii) If the officer is given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure. 11. From the analysis of the guidelines given by the Apex Court in both the cases referred to above it is clear that when the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest and such compulsory retirement shall not be done as a punitive measure. The purpose of passing an order of premature retirement is for better administration and it is necessary to chop off dead-wood. Now coming to the past C.C.Rs, of the Plaintiff as quoted above. I do not find single adverse entry and on the other hand services rendered by the Plaintiff has been appreciated at some places. The only ground on which the order of premature retirement is based appears to be pendency of a vigilance enquiry which culminated in a final report in favour of the Plaintiff after the impugned order was passed. In connection with the above reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Bhaskar Padhi v. The Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in 7387 (1) OLR 219. In the said case the delinquent officer was put under compulsory retirement while he was working as a Traffic Supervisor in the year 1982. One of the considerations for passing the order of compulsory retirement was pendency of a vigilance enquiry on certain allegations. This Court while dealing with the said question observed that if some allegation had been made and a case started by vigilance department was pending that could not be a ground to hold that the Petitioner lacked integrity. After all the matter had remained at the stage of adjudication and it had not been established that the Petitioner was dishonest. The Apex Court in the case of M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India and Others, also dealt with the question in reference to "doubtful integrity". The Apex Court held as follows: The Appellant Director of Anti Evasion Wing had established in unblemish reputation and earned encomius from ail concerned for having conducted series of raids on business houses to unearth huge amount of concealed excise duty. Union of India and Others, also dealt with the question in reference to "doubtful integrity". The Apex Court held as follows: The Appellant Director of Anti Evasion Wing had established in unblemish reputation and earned encomius from ail concerned for having conducted series of raids on business houses to unearth huge amount of concealed excise duty. He was dubbed as an officer of doubtful integrity and ordered to compulsory retire. Out of the three instances on which the Screening Committee relied to dub the officer as a case of "doubtful integrity" the first was his action against a business house. The fact is that it was the Appellant who headed the operation. A task which unearthed huge sum of concealed excise duty would normally evoke appreciation for his work. But what was noted against him in that affair was that he wilfully created lacuna in the confiscation proceedings for providing an escape route to the defaulter. One lacuna was that the confiscation order contained nearly 100 pages and the period was too short for preparing such an order. Another lacuna was that he imposed a huge penalty and fine without issuing a show cause notice. Normally it is an achievement that an order of 100 pages was made during such a short period. It cannot be frowned at by inferring that he would have caused it to be written by somebody else. Similarly to say that be imposed penalty without notice, in order to held the defaulter is too fetched. The second instance was that investigation against some business houses was kept in abeyance by the Deputy Director allegedly at behest of Appellant. The minimum things expected of the screening committee was to ascertain from the Deputy Director, the circumstances under which instructions were issued by him to keep the investigation in abeyance. Attributing a sinister motive to the Appellant for what his deputy had done was seemingly unfair, without adopting the minimum precautions. The third instance was a statement by a owner of a business house that a third person has told them that Appellant was to be paid Rs. 10 lakhs to save them from the proceedings. Neither its truthfulness was checked with the Appellant or with the third person who had made it. Held, there was utter dearth of evidence for the Screening Committee to conclude that Appellant had doubtful integrity. 10 lakhs to save them from the proceedings. Neither its truthfulness was checked with the Appellant or with the third person who had made it. Held, there was utter dearth of evidence for the Screening Committee to conclude that Appellant had doubtful integrity. Order by which premature compulsory retirement was imposed on the Appellant was liable to be set aside. 12. In view of the decision referred to above. I am of the opinion that there being no adverse entry in the C.C.Rs, of the Plaintiff and the Review Committee having recommended twice for his continuance in service, there was no reason for the Defendants to retire the Plaintiff prematurely. Mere pendency of a vigilance investigation was not enough to say that the Plaintiff had a doubtful integrity. On the other hand from the record it appears that the said vigilance enquiry ended in final report in favour of the Plaintiff. I therefore, agree with trial Court that the materials were not sufficient to hold that the Plaintiff's retirement was necessary in public interest. 13. The next point involved in the present appeal is whether the order of compulsory retirement was passed in accordance with the rules. The learned Counsel appearing for the O.R.T. company submitted that as per the rules prevailing at the time of premature retirement of the Plaintiff it was open for the employer to retire the employee with three months prior notice or pay in lieu thereof and nothing more is required. On perusal of the relevant rules which were prevailing earlier and at the time of premature retirement of the Plaintiff, it appears that the submission of the learned Counsel for the Defendant, the O.R.T. Company is not sustainable. Ext. 9 and Ext. 9/a are the rules governing premature retirement of the employees of the O.R.T.C Company. The Defendants filed the rules governing at the time of premature retirement which was marked as Ext. Z. It appears that Ext. 9 and Ext. 9/a are the rules governing the field of premature retirement and Ext. Z speaks of some amendment made to the said rules. On perusal of the earlier rule and the amended rule, it appears that there is absolutely no difference and are same word by word. Z. It appears that Ext. 9 and Ext. 9/a are the rules governing the field of premature retirement and Ext. Z speaks of some amendment made to the said rules. On perusal of the earlier rule and the amended rule, it appears that there is absolutely no difference and are same word by word. What the learned Counsel for the company intends to say is that the relevant provision which empowers to retire and an employee prematurely with three months prior notice or pay in lieu thereof is to be read in isolation of other provisions contained in the rules and unable to accept such contention. The rules governing premature retirement have to be read as a whole and a part of rules read in satisfaction of Ors. . The power to retire an employee prematurely shall depend upon satisfaction of the other conditions contained in the rules governing premature retirement and it will not be open for the employer to retire any employee prematurely at its sweet will taking help of sub-rule-vii without other conditions being fulfilled. From the discussions made in the earlier paragraphs, it is clear that there was no adverse entry in the past C.C.Rs, and the compulsory retirement order has only been based on the reason that the vigilance enquiry was pending against the Appellant. Since I have discussed the law with regard to the same earlier in this judgment, I have no hesitation to hold that mere pendency of a vigilance enquiry at the time of compulsory retirement will not be a ground for supporting the action of the Defendants company in retiring the Plaintiff-Appellant prematurely. As a matter of fact as admitted by both the parties even same time after the order of the premature retirement was passed, the vigilance enquiry was concluded and a final report was submitted in favour of the Appellant. In view of the reasons as stated above, I conclude that the findings of the lower appellate Court are not in terms of law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court and the judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. I therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and confirm the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif. In the circumstances there will be no order as to cost.