Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Limited. 2. The petitioner who was posted as Divisional Engineer and was serving as a Manager, Central Workshop of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (in short the Corporation), Phulwari Sharif, Patna has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness and validity of the office order no. 793 dated 27.10.20C4 as contained in Annexure-1, whereunder he has been compulsorily retired by resorting to the provi- sions contained in Rule 74(b)(ll) of the Bihar Service Code as the Administrator of the Corporation having assessed his performance in the capacity of the Works Manager was of the view that his services is no longer usefully required to serve the Corporation. He has further assailed the order bearing memo no. 49 dated 7.1.2006, Annexure-9, whereunder request to recall the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement dated 27.10.2004 was refused. 3. The petitioner assails the aforesaid two orders dated 27.10.2004 and 7.1.2006 on the ground that the Administrator while passing the two orders did not consider his entire service records and took into account solitary incident of 27.10.2004 itself and proceeded to conclude that the petitioner has no utility for further serving the Corporation and he should be compulsorily retired. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the averments made in the different paragraphs of the writ petition that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Corporation as a Junior Foreman on 13.8.1970, whereafter he served the Corporation to the satisfaction of all concerned and in consideration of such satisfactory service he was promoted as Senior Foreman in the pay scale of Rs. 850-1360 under order dated 31.8.1988. In consideration of the further satisfactory service, the petitioner was allowed officiating promotion on the post of Divisional Engineer under office order no. 310 dated 20.2.1993. While the petitioner continued to officiate as Divisional Engineer the then Works Manager of the Corporation retired on 31.1.2000 whereafter petitioner being the Seniormost officiating Divisional Engineer was asked to take over charge from the retiring Works Manager and since then tiff the date of issue of impugned order he continued to serve the Corporation as Works Manager in addition to his own duties of Divisional Engineer. It has been specifically averred in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that the petitioner was simultaneously discharging the duties of Senior Foreman, Divisional Engineer as well as of the Works Manager. It so happened that on 27.10.2004 the Administrator convened a Meeting of the" Managers of the Corporation and during the meeting it was proposed by the Administrator that the output of resoling tyres in the Central Workshop should be increased from 14 to 21 tyres per day. The petitioner being the In-charge of the workshop indicated his inability to achieve the target from 27.10.2004 as necessary infrastructure and staff was not available. He, however, submitted that a weeks time may be allowed to achieve the target of resoling 21 tyres per day. It has been further submitted in the writ petition that on account of his inability to achieve the target of resoling 21 tyres per day with effect from 27.10.2004 the petitioner has been compulsorily retired under the impugned order dated 27.10.2004, Annexure-1. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is also contended in the writ petition that the ingredients envisaged under Sub-Rule (b)(ll) of Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code is not made out as for retiring any employee in terms of those Rules of the Code the entire service records and other connected materials is required to be perused and considered before any order in terms of those Rules is issued. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on two judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Anr. V/s. Surya Kant Chinalal, reported in 1999(1) SCC 529 , paragraph-24 and the case of State of Gujarat V/s. Umed Bhai M. Patel, reported in 2001(3) SCC 314 , paragraphia Sub-paragraphs III to VI. 5. V/s. Surya Kant Chinalal, reported in 1999(1) SCC 529 , paragraph-24 and the case of State of Gujarat V/s. Umed Bhai M. Patel, reported in 2001(3) SCC 314 , paragraphia Sub-paragraphs III to VI. 5. Learned counsel for the Corporation has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit duly affirmed by the Chief of the Administration of the Corporation, whereunder it has been submitted that the Corporation is a commercial organisation and for last so many years it has been undergoing acute financial crisis and was at the brink of closure on account of its inability to meet its financial obligations as a result of which a number of cases were filed before this Court as also in the Apex Court. The State Government on the intervention of the Apex Court formulated a scheme for revival of the Corporation and funds were provided by the State Government to purchase new buses as also to bring on road buses which were off road. In spite of revival scheme being monitored by the Apex Court the revival could not be achieved within a limited time frame on account of delay in release of funds due to bifurcation of the State and also to some extent due to the lackadaisical attitude of the employees in operation and maintenance sections of the Corporation. For successful completion of the revival scheme it is necessary to keep constant vigil towards efficient and productive use of both buses as well as personnels of the Corporation. For ensuring successful revival of the Corporation it is necessary to increase per kilometre income of the Corporation which is only possible if the personnels available in the Corporation are usefully applied for productive use and while doing so those who on account of old age have become inefficient and are not suitable for increasing the productivity in the Corporation are required to be compui-sorily retired. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that in order to maintain regular operation of buses and keep them running on the road it is necessary that adequate supply of tyres is always maintained for which tyre retreading plant was set up in the Central Workshop at Phulwarisharif. Due to increase in the number of buses on account of revival scheme it is necessary that at least 21 tyres must be retreaded per day. Due to increase in the number of buses on account of revival scheme it is necessary that at least 21 tyres must be retreaded per day. If such output is not achieved it would directly affect the operation of buses and would render the buses off road resulting direct loss to the Corporation. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that with a view to increase the productivity the Central Workshop of the Corporation was directed to resole at least 21 tyres per day and the petitioner being the Works Manager of the said workshop indicated his complete inability to achieve resoling of 21 tyres per day and taking into account the refusal of the petitioner to achieve the said target which fact is also admitted in the writ petition he was found inefficient as also not suitable tor revival of the Corporation and accordingly the impugned order was passed resorting to the provisions of Rule 74(b)(ll) of the Bihar Service Code as the petitioner had attained the age of 50 years and completed 30 years of service. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that the two impugned orders are neither stigmatic in nature nor any punishment has been imposed thereunder and the same having been passed with a view to ensure revival of the Corporation should not be interfered with in this proceeding. In support of the aforesaid submission learned counsel for the Corporation further with reference to the different entries recorded in the service book of the petitioner has submitted that the assertion in the writ petition that the service record of the petitioner is absolutely clean as he has not been reported any adverse entries/report in connection with the discharge of his duties is not correct as the petitioner was awarded warning and censor even prior to his officiating promotion on 31.8.1988/20.2.1993 and after he was given charge of the office of the Works Manager on 1.2.2000. Learned counsel for the Corporation with reference to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and Ors. Learned counsel for the Corporation with reference to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and Ors. V/s. Ramchandra Das reported in 1996 SCC (L&S) 1169 has submitted that the entries recorded in the service book may be before or after the promotion can always be taken into account while passing the order of compulsory retirement and in the instant case the impugned order has been passed after making over all assessment of the service record of the petitioner and this Court should be slow in setting aside the said order. The submission of the learned counsel in regard to the entries made in the service record ofthe petitioner has not been incorporated in the counter affidavit, as such, this Court is refraining itself from taking into account the aforesaid submission as those entries ought to have been weighed by the Competent Authority when it proceeded to pass the impugned order and not by this Court during the hearing of the writ case. 6. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the same was passed after assessing the performance of the petitioner as the Works Manager. While passing the said order his performance as Junior/Senior Foreman, Divisional Engineer was never considered which is also evident not only from perusal of the impugned order but also from perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit as the perusal of the counter affidavit does not indicate that before passing the impugned order entire service performance was assessed. The counter affidavit takes note of the inability of the petitioner to achieve the target of resoling 21 tyres per day as inefficiency on the part of the petitioner and on that basis alone he was found not feasible for the revival of the Corporation. 7. The counter affidavit takes note of the inability of the petitioner to achieve the target of resoling 21 tyres per day as inefficiency on the part of the petitioner and on that basis alone he was found not feasible for the revival of the Corporation. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the inability to achieve resoling of 21 tyres per day should not be taken as a circumstance to adjudge the petitioner as a deadwood as it was the petitioner who increased the resoling capacity in the workshop from 7 to 14 tyres per day while considering the utility of the petitioner for further service in the Corporation his performance in the entire service career together with his inability to resole 21 tyres per day should have been considered like a reasonable prudent man which does not appear to have been done under the impugned order as the impugned order has been passed only taking into account the assessment of petitioners service as the Works Manager of the Corporation. In the circumstances, this Court has no option but to quash the two impugned orders, Annexures 1 and 9, however, with liberty to the Administrator of the Corporation to reconsider the matter in accordance with law taking into account the entire service record of the petitioner right from his entry in the service on the post of Junior foreman as also his performance on the post of Senior foreman, Divisional Engineer and the Works Manager coupled with the fact that it was the petitioner who increased the resoling capacity in the Central Workshop, Phulwarisharif, Patna from 7 to 14 tyres per day. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in the light of the above observations and directions. No cost.