Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.9.2002 (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service. 2. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as a Salesman by order dated 11.7.1975 and in pursuance thereof he joined at Dhanbad office of the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation. Petitioner worked as Salesman till 10.1.1989 at Dhanbad and thereafter promoted as Assistant and transferred to Sasaram. In the year 1985, he was transferred to Gaya where he worked till 1990 followed by his transfer to Aurangabad and lastly to Bhojpur. While the petitioner was posted at Bhojpur, by order dated 4.9.2002, he was put under suspension on the purported allegation of looting the records of the godown with the help of anti social elements. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 20.9.2002 (Annexure-3), petitioner has been compulsorily retired under Rule 29 (B) of the Service, Conduct and Disciplinary Rules. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.1 in which it has been stated that while the petitioner was posted as Incharge Assistant Godown Manager at Rice Mill Godown Buxar, Bhojpur, he was directed to produce all the relevant papers for verification of the sugar accounts of the said godown and when the records produced by the petitioner was being verified, one of the relatives of the petitioner and other criminals entered into the office and on gun point relevant records were taken away which led to filing of the first information report in which the petitioner has been named. In the counter affidavit, it has been further stated that the petitioner was directed by the District Manager of the Corporation to submit the relevant records of the Rice Mill Godown within two days so that the audit may be done by the audit team but the petitioner had refused to submit the same on the purported plea that the first information report has been lodged in this regard. The background which led to passing of the order of compulsory retirement, has been stated or has been explained in para-14 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows : "14.-That with regard to the statement made in paragraph nos. The background which led to passing of the order of compulsory retirement, has been stated or has been explained in para-14 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows : "14.-That with regard to the statement made in paragraph nos. 13 and 14 of the writ application, the deponent states that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from the service not only on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted relevant records of the said Godown to the Audit Team for verification of the said Godown nor the petitioner has handed over the records to his successor namely Vijay Bahadur Singh, Assistant Godown Manager but considering his past service records, his integrity and other relevant aspect of his association with the Corporation, the petitioner who was under the employment of the Corporation for the last 27 years was found as dishonest, disloyal, indiscipline person as it stated in earlier paragraphs. The petitioner had to be compulsorily retired in the public interest. The petitioner has also not co-operated with the Audit Team." 4. From the pleas of the parties, one thing is evident that the petitioner, who was an employee of the Corporation, has been compulsorily retired from service without holding any enquiry. 5. Mr.S.B.K. Mangalam, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been retired from service by way of punishment and the same having been done without giving any opportunity to him or holding a departmental inquiry, is in the breach of the principles of natural justice and this itself vitiates the impugned order. He submits that the order has been passed under Rule 29 (B) of the Service Conduct and Disciplinary Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules which confers power on the Managing Director to compulsorily retire an employee without assigning any reason or following the principles of natural justice, but the said power itself being invalid, the impugned order is fit to be struck down on this ground alone. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation V/s. DTC Mazdoor Congress and ors. reported in AIR 1991 SC 101 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation V/s. DTC Mazdoor Congress and ors. reported in AIR 1991 SC 101 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment. "199.Thus on a conspectus of the catena of cases decided by this Court the only conclusion follows is that Regulation 9 (b) which confers powers on the authority to terminate the services of a permanent and confirmed employee by issuing a notice terminating the services or by making payment in lieu of notice without assigning any reasons in the order and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the employee before passing the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, uncanalised and unrestricted violating principles of natural justice as well as Art. 14 of the Constitution. xxx" 6. Mr. R.S. Pradhan, however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that an order of compulsory. retirement is not a punishment and it implies no stigma and the principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. He points out that petitioner being not in the service of the State or Union of India, or a holder of a civil post, protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India is not available to him. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Pal Singh V/s. Union of India and ors. reported in (2002) 2 B.L.J.R. 1590 [: 2002 (3) PLJR 430] and my attention has been drawn to the following paragraphs from the said judgment. "17.It is, thus, to be seen that on the one hand the petitioner does not have the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and on the other hand it is expressly held by the Supreme Court that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment, it implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour and the principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. 18.Moreover, in atleast two recent cases the orders of compulsory retirement made an equally stronger indictment of the concerned employees but the Supreme Court declined to interfere on the ground that the orders were stigmatising. 18.Moreover, in atleast two recent cases the orders of compulsory retirement made an equally stronger indictment of the concerned employees but the Supreme Court declined to interfere on the ground that the orders were stigmatising. In Prabodh Sagar V/s. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2000) 5 SCC 630 , the order of compulsory retirement was passed on grounds which, inter alia stated as follows : "It is observed that during the last ten years, his ACRs for a short period of little more than a year viz. 1.4.1987 to 31.12.1987 (Nine months) and 12.10.1989 to 31.3.1990 (five and a half months) are good and rest are average, or poor. During the period 26.6.1995 to 31.12.1995 when his over all rating is poor with adverse remarks, there is another remark in the honesty column that he is not taking interest in the office work and as such he cannot be said to be honest to his work/duty. The officer has not shown any improvement and instead his confidential record is on the decline. "In addition to above for the serious omission and commissions made by the officer in the performance of his duties, he was issued charge sheet and on its finalisation, he was given a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect vide office order No. 61/DS/-1/D-664, dated 21.1.1994. This punishment has been upheld even by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In another case of misconduct of using derogatory remark against his controlling officer, he was issued a letter of advise on 2.1.1996. Till in another case of absence from duty without sanction of leave, he was issued a show cause notice and was censured vide O/O No. 85/DS-1/D-31 dated 27.11.1996." "19.In another case, "State of U.P. V/s. Lalsa Ram, (2001) 3 S.C.C. 389 , the grounds on which the order of compulsory retirement was passed were as follows : "In the case of Shri Lalsa Ram, the officer mentioned against SI.No. 62 of Enclosure A, the Screening Committee on considering thoroughly his relevant service records and the entries available in his character roll, found that Shri Lalsa Ram was given adverse entry in 1967-68 (from 14.4.1967 to 21.9.1967), in 1967 (27.9.1967 to 31.3.1968), 1981-82, 1982-83 and in 1991-92, and a particular adverse entry on 16.12.1982 and censure entry on 18.8.1986. Thus, the service or Shri Lalsa Ram constantly deteriorated. Thus, the service or Shri Lalsa Ram constantly deteriorated. "Under the above circumstances the Screening Committee, as a result of its study, found the following officers unfit to continue in service in public interest and the Committee recommended that they should be compulsorily retired : (1) *** (2) *** (3) Shri Lalsa Ram From 1994 "20.In these facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the impugned order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service compulsorily cannot be assailed on the ground that it levelled charges against him and was, therefore, violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs." 7. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Shri Pradhan. Petitioner is an employee of the Corporation and as such, protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India is not available to him. Further an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. The order impugned does not cast any stigma nor suggest any misbehaviour on the part of the petitioner. It is only when the order of compulsory retirement is challenged before this Court, respondents have placed the background in which the order has been passed. The view which I have taken, finds support from the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Pal Singh (supra) which has been rendered on consideration of several authorities of the Supreme Court. 8. In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ application and it is dismissed accordingly, but no order as to costs.