Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, a small fry working as a driver with Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited, was served with a show-cause notice Annexure-2 vide letter No. 3382 dated 26.3.2002. The Managing Director informed the petitioner that the petitioner was absent from his duty on 25.7.1987 and a show-cause notice was issued to him. It was also stated in the notice that he was again absent on 27.4.1991 without any information and a show-cause notice was issued on 4.5.1991. He was also given warning vide Memo No. 7516 dated 3.12.1987. He was also informed vide Memo No. 2789 dated 4.3.2002 that he was to submit his show-cause reply regarding unauthorised absence for two days. The petitioner was issued notice to show-cause as to why because of dereliction in duty and unauthorised absence he be not compulsorily retired. 3. The petitioner submitted his reply tendering his unconditional apology and submitted that for the reasons beyond his control he had to proceed on leave. After considering his show-cause the Managing Director vide his Officer order No. 134 dated 8.4.2002 directed that with effect from 30.4.2002 the petitioner stands compulsorily retired. The said order was approved by the Board of Directors in the meeting dated 13.5.2002 and as the petitioner could not get any relief from either of these corners, he has come to this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bare perusal of notice Annexure-2 would show that the petitioner was absent for one day on 25.7.1987 and one more day on 27.4.1991 and in the long tenure of 26 years of service he remained absent for only four days and that too beyond his control and as such it could not be deemed to be dereliction in duty nor it would appear that the petitioner has become dead wood and he must be compulsorily retired. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in accordance with Clause 72(a) of the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. Service Regulations, 1976, the Corporation is entitled to compulsorily retire a servant if it is found in the interest of public that on the said date the employee has completed 23 years of service or has attained the age of 48 years. It is vehemently submitted that if people like him are allowed to continue in service then such people will spoil the Corporation. It is also submitted that compulsory retirement is not by way of punishment and as the respondent-Corporation has exercised its option/authority, the order issued against the petitioner is well within the jurisdiction of the respondent-Corporation. 6. To say that people like the petitioner spoil the work and working of the Corporation is an absurd tall claim. As observed earlier, the petitioner is a small fry in Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation. The petitioner is merely a driver. If a driver remains absent for a day or two beyond his control then the authority sitting in the ivory towers must not understand that he is absent without any cause. It is not in the order that because of the absence of the petitioner for only four days in his long 26 years of service the interest of the Corporation has suffered. Simply to say and to counter, the argument that the interest of Corporation will suffer, will not suffice without any reasons, specially when there is no speaking order and there was only a simple show-cause notice. The order contained in Annexure 6 is a cruel order. It is astigmatic in nature. It says that there are umpteen proofs against the petitioner for dereliction in duty without giving any instances. It says that the petitioner remained on unauthorised leave for a number of times without appreciating that in 26 years he was absent for four days only. It says that the petitioner has completed 26 years of service in the Corporation he is being compulsorily retired under Clause 72(a) of the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. Service Regulations, this part does not consider that what interest of the Corporation would be served by retiring the petitioner and how does the petitioner became dead wood. 7. After going through the complete notice and show-cause, I am unable to find any foundation asking for compulsory retirement as observed against the petitioner. In the year 1987 and 1991 show-cause notices were issued against the petitioner and the petitioner supplied his reply and no further action was taken against him. Then it must be presumed that those absence of one day each have been sanctioned by the Corporation. 8. In the year 1987 and 1991 show-cause notices were issued against the petitioner and the petitioner supplied his reply and no further action was taken against him. Then it must be presumed that those absence of one day each have been sanctioned by the Corporation. 8. It is to be seen vide Annexure-3/1 the order dated 17.3.2002, the petitioner was given earned leave for eight days. If that be so, then the petitioner was entitled for adjustment of his absence towards leave and if the authorities were kind enough to grant leave of absence then they were not required to act heartlessly in the matter of compulsory retirement. While passing such orders the authorities must not forget that in these days there is great unemployment problem and the petitioner has no other source of his livelihood. They should also remember that unemployment leads to poverty, loss of bread and finally to crime. 9. In the circumstances, orders as contained in Annexures-6 and 8 deserve to quash and are accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed.