Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus.) 1.00. Whether a meritorious employee can be forced to premature retirement without valid reason is the core question in this writ. 2.00. The order of compulsory retirement was served on IC-32424 Col. AG Thomas, EME, an officer of DRDO, the petitioner herein. He is challenging the legality and correctness of the order. 3.00. The Union of India, represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Defence, is the first respondent; the Director General-Research & Development, Ministry of Defence, is the second respondent; the Director of Personnel, R&D Organisation, Ministry of Defence, is the third respondent and the Estate Manager, Estate Management Establishment, Secunderabad, is the fourth respondent. 4.00. Through the impugned order dated 05th August, 1997, the petitioner was ordered to be relieved with effect from 31.10.1998 on attaining the age of 52 years. Admittedly, the petitioner has not attained the age of superannuation and there are no vigilance cases or disciplinary action either pending or initiated against the petitioner during his entire service. If so, how far the order of compulsory retirement is legal? 5.00. At the outset, this Court is clarifying that a judicial scrutiny of an order of imposing premature compulsory retirement is permissible if the order is either arbitrary or malafide or if it is based on no evidence. In M.S. Bindra v. Union of India & Ors. ( 1998 (7) SUPREME 90 ), in para 21, the Supreme Court observed as follows : "21. We have no doubt that there is utter dearth of evidence for the Screening Committee to conclude that appellant had doubtful integrity. Such a conclusion does not stand judicial scrutiny even within the limited permissible scope. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order under attack including the order by which premature compulsory retirement was imposed on the appellant. The department concerned shall now work out the reliefs to be granted to the appellant as sequel to this judgment." 6.00. Thus, it is time to scrutinise the impugned order and the documents in support of it, in order to decide whether the order is legal or illegal. 7.00. The department concerned shall now work out the reliefs to be granted to the appellant as sequel to this judgment." 6.00. Thus, it is time to scrutinise the impugned order and the documents in support of it, in order to decide whether the order is legal or illegal. 7.00. Before I embark upon deciding the above question as to whether the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice, I may have to know some other relevant facts, which require the attention of this Court for the purpose of answering the question raised before me. 8.00. FACTS : 8.01. The petitioner is a Mechanical Engineer from the University of Mysore, specialised in Armament Engineering, having done the Advance Armament Engineering Course from EME School, Baroda. 8.02. The record of service, as furnished by the petitioner, disclosed that he worked at P & EE, Balasore, during February, 1974, to July, 1976. He also worked as a Staff Officer to SA to RM, New Delhi, from September 1979 to October 1984 and Deputy Technical Adviser (Defence), High Commission of India, London, from October 1984 to December 1987 and served in CVRDE, Avadi, from January 1988 to March 1991 and thereafter as a Registrar (Academics), IAT, Pune, from March 1991 to August 1994 and finally in DRDO Liaison Cell & Estate Management Establishment, Madras, from August 1994 till the date of his compulsory retirement. 8.03. The petitioner has highlighted his qualifications and eligibility criterion for continuing in the service and strongly contended that there are no adverse remarks in any of his Annual Confidential Reports. 8.04. The respondents did not deny the above either in their counter or during the course of arguments. The reason is that the impugned order at para 4 states as follows : "It is confirmed that no disciplinary/vigilance case is pending/contemplated against the officer." 8.05. The further case of the petitioner is that he has completed all tasks assigned to him in time to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and all his superiors have appreciated his unblemished character and untiring efforts. 8.06. The further case of the petitioner is that he has completed all tasks assigned to him in time to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and all his superiors have appreciated his unblemished character and untiring efforts. 8.06. The petitioner has specifically stated in his letter dated 09th March, 1998, addressed to SA to RM and DG (R&D), that his dossiers and Annual Confidential Reports written by Air Vice Marshal Deshpande and Rear Admiral Ajay Sharma, two senior officers of Air Force and Naval respectively, reveal that the petitioner is a competent person. 8.07. The petitioner was compulsorily retired while in service in DRDO. The petitioner held three coveted appointments during his career in DRDO and the said three posts are normally held by outstanding officers only. They are (1) Head of General Staff Branch at IAT, Pune, (1991-1994), which is a category ‘A’ training establishment under the control of Defence Ministry, training at least 100 Army Officers for the safety and sovereignty of the country and during this period, he earned very good respect and reverence from all concerned and the five confidential reports will speak for the kind of the work both quantitatively and qualitatively, performed by the petitioner (2) Deputy Technical Adviser (Defence) at HCI, London. It is stated that he was accredited to most European countries and USA and the excellent confidential reports from the superiors disclose that he was an asset to his team. The then High Commissioner of India Dr.P.C.Alexander has also appreciated the sincere work of the petitioner (3) Staff Officer to SA to RM. According to the petitioner, he was selected to work as the Service Staff Officer (a newly created post) to Dr. Raja Ramanna, who is a very famous and popular scientist of the country. The petitioner contends that the confidential reports written by Dr.Raja Ramanna discloses the conduct, character and the credibility of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner continued to be the Staff Officer to Dr. V.S. Arunachalam, who took over as SA to RM and without any blame, he served for five long years as Staff Officer to two Scientific Advisers, who are the pride of the country. 8.08. It is also stated that the petitioner continued to be the Staff Officer to Dr. V.S. Arunachalam, who took over as SA to RM and without any blame, he served for five long years as Staff Officer to two Scientific Advisers, who are the pride of the country. 8.08. Thus, the forceful pleading of the petitioner is that he had put up long and colourful record of service, but ignoring all this, he was forced to retire from service for the reasons not known to him but best known to very few. According to the petitioner, he was subjected to injustice from the beginning. 8.09. It is stated that his promotion was denied in the year 1993 and the reasons were not assigned ; his juniors are promoted, however, the DRDO Promotion Board found him fit and promoted him to the rank of Colonel in the year 1994, a year after. 8.10. The petitioner suspects that somebody has damaged his reputation when he was working as CVRDE, which was handling a high profile and high cost Main Battle Tank - Arjun Project. The petitioner states he had a very frank and truthful discussion with SA to RM in the early 1989 about the working of CVRDE and the Arjun Project Management, wherein he expressed that the project is not properly and professionally managed and according to him, the truthful communication from him to the then SA to RM may be a reason for somebody to sack him from service. However, the petitioner contends that adverse remarks if any have not been communicated to him either verbally or in writing by any authority at any stage of his career and while he was discharging his duties as a sane and sincere officer the impugned notice is served on him and it is a shocking news not only to him but to his family and to all those who are doing honest and hard work in the Department. 8.11. The petitioner has highlighted all the above contentions in his letter addressed to SA to RM & DG (R&D) on 09th March, 1998, and his second letter dated 08th July, 1998, addressed to the same authority and his last letter addressed to the Hon’ble Defence Minister, Ministry of Defence, on 03rd October, 1998. In his affidavit, he has mentioned some of those facts. 9.00. COUNTER : 9.01. In his affidavit, he has mentioned some of those facts. 9.00. COUNTER : 9.01. On behalf of the respondents, a Senior Administrative Officer-I, CVRDE, Defence Research & Development Organisation, Chennai, has filed a counter affidavit, wherein the facts with regard to the service of the petitioner, his various appointments and the order of compulsory retirement with effect from 31.10.1998 are admitted. 9.02. In para 6 of the counter, it is stated that the case of the petitioner was reviewed amongst others for continuance in service beyond 52 years by the Selection Board strictly in terms of the Office Memo of the Ministry of Defence vide No.Pers/1880/RD Sel Bd/7971/D (R&D), dated 23.11.1979, hereinafter referred to as memorandum, and the Board, after verifying the confidential reports pertaining to the petitioner, recommended that the petitioner was not to be continued inservice beyond 31st October, 1998, and, accordingly, the impugned order of compulsory retirement has been issued. 9.03. The counter is totally silent about any adverse reports or remarks found in the confidential reports or the reasons of the Board for not recommending the case of the petitioner. The thrust of the respondents through their counter is that as the Selection Board recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner and its decision is final, the order in question has been issued. 10.00. ARGUMENTS : 10.01. Heard Sri Prakash Goklaney, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 10.02. Learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the meritorious service rendered by the petitioner and contended that the order of compulsory retirement is whimsical, arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that the order does not state any reason for warranting compulsory retirement of the petitioner at the age of 52 years, depriving the future service of the petitioner, and that the factors which are relevant for issuing the order have not been communicated to the petitioner either before passing the impugned order or subsequently, despite the petitioner addressing the authorities concerned, seeking for justice. 10.03. It is stoutly argued that the impugned order itself clarifies that no disciplinary/vigilance case is pending or contemplated against the petitioner and that itself is sufficient to quash the same. 10.03. It is stoutly argued that the impugned order itself clarifies that no disciplinary/vigilance case is pending or contemplated against the petitioner and that itself is sufficient to quash the same. It is further contended that the authorities have right to review the work of an officer, but when the record has been absolutely good, there should be valid and cogent reason for compulsory retirement of the officer and that the impugned order is against the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity has been given to the petitioner before passing the order. 10.04. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioner's work was found to be unsatisfactory and having considered the latest service record, the Board has formed an opinion that premature retirement of the petitioner is necessary in public interest and it is bona fide and the same cannot be questioned. 10.05. It is also contended that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order at the earliest and the writ petition is an afterthought and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that the recommendation of the Selection Board is based on the record of service of the petitioner as per CR and the decisions of the DRDO Selection Board in 1994 and 1997 are separate and distinct and hence the decision of the Board is final and it is as per the criteria laid down by the Selection Board at the time of review. 11.00. POINT : 11.01. The point for determination is, whether the order of premature retirement, served on the petitioner, is arbitrary? 11.02. I would now examine the relevant rule. 11.03. Para 7 of the Office Memorandum No.Pers/18601/RD Sel Bd/7971/D (R&D), dated 23.11.1979, deals with Age of Compulsory Retirement, which is reproduced hereunder for a better understanding : "7. The age of compulsory retirement will be 57 years for all officers up to the rank of Maj Gen/Eqvt with reviews at 52 and 55 years to determine the suitability of an officer for continuation beyond that age. Officers considered not suitable for continuation in service, as a result of any of these reviews, will be retired on attaining the age of 52 years or 55 years, as the case may be. Officers considered not suitable for continuation in service, as a result of any of these reviews, will be retired on attaining the age of 52 years or 55 years, as the case may be. The review will be carried out by the DRDO Selection Board well in advance of the officers attaining the age of 52 and 55 years and criteria for the review will be laid down by the Selection Board. The officers also will have the reciprocal right to seek voluntary retirement on attaining the age of 52/55 years." 11.04. The above rule clarifies that the age of compulsory retirement is 57 years with reviews at 52 and 55 years to determine the suitability of an officer for continuance beyond that age. Thus, it is clear that a review is permissible at the age of 52 and 55 years and the said review is for the purpose of deciding as to whether the continuation of service of an officer is desirable or not. The rule further says that the officers considered not suitable for continuation in service, as a result of any of those reviews, will be retired on attaining the respective age, as the case may be. It further says that reviews will be carried out by the DRDO Selection Board well in advance and the criteria for the review will be laid down by the Selection Board. Therefore, the rule does now law down any criteria or guidelines for exercise of the review. 11.05. In Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab 1987 (2) SUPREME COURT CASES 188, in para 5, it is specifically held " ....The public interest in relation to public administration envisages retention of honest and efficient employees in service and dispensing with the services of those who are inefficient, deadwood or corrupt and dishonest. Therefore the rule contemplates premature retirement of the inefficient, corrupt or deadwood which would subserve the public interest." 11.06. The purpose and object of premature and compulsory retirement of Government employees is to weed out the inefficient, corrupt and dishonest officials. This right of the authority of the Government is well established, which is generally exercised in accordance with the relevant service rules. The scope and ambit of exercise of this absolute power depends on the provisions of rules and it is always subject to constitutional limitations. There can be no two opinions about this. This right of the authority of the Government is well established, which is generally exercised in accordance with the relevant service rules. The scope and ambit of exercise of this absolute power depends on the provisions of rules and it is always subject to constitutional limitations. There can be no two opinions about this. The two judgments of the Apex Court referred to supra in this order clarify this point. 11.07. Since the rule in para 7 of the memorandum does not contain any criteria or guidelines for exercise of power of premature retirement while reviewing the service of a particular individual, the appropriate authority, namely, the DRDO Selection Board in this case is expected to exercise its power in judicious manner to retire the petitioner in advance by formulating its opinion through the scrutiny of the confidential reports and by taking into consideration any other substantial material, which is placed before it, and is expected to furnish the reasons for such vital decision. 11.08. It may not be feasible to lay down any absolute terms but there should be some record, disclosing adverse entries in the service record about the inefficiency or lack of integrity on the part of the employee, which would justify the Board for premature retirement. 11.09. The service record, as a whole, of the employee would determine the merit of each case. 11.10. The stray entry here and there or any adverse entry without substantiating the same or any adverse entry without proof of clear and cogent supportive document should be ignored and discouraged. Further, such an adverse entry should be communicated to the employee immediately so that the employee will have an opportunity of explanation and to seek for expunging the same, if the said adverse entry is not based on any record. The communication of the adverse entry to the employee concerned is highly essential, as the remoteness of an adverse entry for scrutiny of the service record of the employee concerned such as crossing of efficiency/confirmation and promotion to higher post or any other questionable conduct of the employee would have a relevant importance. 11.11. The communication of the adverse entry to the employee concerned is highly essential, as the remoteness of an adverse entry for scrutiny of the service record of the employee concerned such as crossing of efficiency/confirmation and promotion to higher post or any other questionable conduct of the employee would have a relevant importance. 11.11. Therefore, it is necessary to emphasise that the appropriate authority in the instant case, namely, DRDO Selection Board should consider the premature retirement of any person if it has a reasonable cause to believe that a particular individual is lacking integrity irrespective of the assessment of his ability and efficiency in work and while concluding this, the Board is expected to verify the meritorious service rendered by the employee if any and the adverse entry made thereafter or earlier to it, if any. 11.12. Thus, while exercising the power, the Board should consider the merit of each case, but not a stray or single incident or an entry, describing the employee concerned as a person of inefficiency, which would not be justified for premature retirement. Therefore, only after verifying the entire service of the employee strictly and as per the service record, a decision for premature retirement should be considered and premature retirement of an employee with doubtful integrity is always advisable, as it would be in public interest. In the absence of any such doubtful integrity or any other details by which the question of public interest could be determined, any order of premature retirement is bad not only in the eye of law but for the betterment of the society. MERITS OF THE CASE : 11.13. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, nothing has been stated about the doubtful integrity of the petitioner. In fact, the impugned order itself clarifies that there is no disciplinary or vigilance case pending or contemplated against the officer. Therefore, the respondents are certifying that the petitioner is an officer with integrity and industry. The counter affidavit is also silent with regard to the inefficiency of the petitioner. It appears that the overall service record of the petitioner is ignored. When the petitioner has highlighted his meritorious service, as disclosed from his service record, the duty cast on the respondents is to deny the same, if it is false. The counter affidavit is also silent with regard to the inefficiency of the petitioner. It appears that the overall service record of the petitioner is ignored. When the petitioner has highlighted his meritorious service, as disclosed from his service record, the duty cast on the respondents is to deny the same, if it is false. Non-denial of these facts establishes that the contents highlighted by the petitioner are true and if they are true, the order of compulsory retirement is uncalled for and unethical. 11.14. The respondents have not produced any documents before this Court to support their action. The impugned order and the subsequent communications from the respondent do not disclose the reasons for arriving at a decision of premature retirement. The impugned order is silent about the documents referred to or the entries noted for the decision to make the petitioner retire at the age of 52 years. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order is issued without considering the relevant records. 11.15. Para 2 of the impugned order discloses that the competent authority has not recommended continuance of the officer in service and it is after reviewing the service of the officer as per the memorandum referred to supra. 11.16. The reasons are not assigned for issuing the impugned order. 11.17. Lord Denning, in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All England Reports 1148, observed as follows : "It is now well settled that a statutory body, which is entrusted by statute with a discretion, must act fairly. It does not matter whether its functions are described as judicial or quasi-judicial on the one hand, or as administrative on the other hand, or what you will. Still it must act fairly. It must, in a proper case, give a party a chance to be heard : see In re H.K.(An Infant) [1967] 2 Q.B.617, 630 by Lord Parker C.J.in relation to immigration officers; and Reg. v. Gaming Board jor Great Britain, Ex parte Benaim and Khaida [1970] 2 Q.B.417,430 by us in relation to the gaming board. The discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That means at least this : the statutory body must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant. The discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That means at least this : the statutory body must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous considerations which it ought not to have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith; nevertheless the decision will be set aside. That is established by Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968) A.C.997 which is a landmark in modern administrative law." "... a body, statutory or domestic to give reasons for its decision or to give the person concerned a chance of being heard ? Not always, but sometimes. It all depends on what is fair in the circumstances. If a man seeks a privilege to which he has no particular claim - such as an appointment to some post or other - then he can be turned away without a word. He need not be heard. No explanation need be given : see the cases cited in Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch.149, 170-171. But if he is a man whose property is at stake, or who is being deprived of his livelihood, then reasons should be given why he is being turned down, and he should be given a chance to be heard. I go further. If he is a man who has some right or interest, or some legitimate expectation, of which it would not be fair to deprive him without a hearing, or reasons given, then these should be afforded him, according as the case may demand. The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Again take Padfield's case [1968] A.C.997. The dairy farmers had no right to have their complaint referred to a committee of investigation, but they had a legitimate expectation that it would be. The House made it clear that if the Minister rejected their request without reason, the court might infer that he had no good reason; and, that if he gave a bad reason, it might vitiate his decision." 11.18. Giving reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The House made it clear that if the Minister rejected their request without reason, the court might infer that he had no good reason; and, that if he gave a bad reason, it might vitiate his decision." 11.18. Giving reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of decision taker on the controversy and the man at the receiving end. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Right to reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial or administrative system. Even if it is a military system, the reasons are vital, because we are in democracy and the ballot is more powerful than bullet. In a democracy, dissent is inevitable. But, be you never so high the law is above you is the concept of rule of law and all of us are below the law. An unreasoned order is not an order in the eye of law. Silence renders virtually impossible for the victim as well as the Courts to perform their duties. It is based on the principle that the affected party should know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words- speaking out. Thus, it is clear that unreasoned order amounts to non-speaking order. A non-speaking order is to be quashed. The respondents cannot canvas that it is their privilege. 11.19. When the right information is the order of the day and when this right is treated as a natural right of humanity from the time of birth till death and such right of information is recognised as human right from the time immemorial not only in Kaliyuga or through the latest legislation but from the birth of Adam and Eve and when we are advocating is as a human right and a fundamental right, the authorities cannot contend that it is their privilege. 11.20. In fact, the integrity and sovereignty of the country is mainly on the shoulders of self disciplined citizen, who is recognised as honest, hardworking and intelligent, but not on the whimsical functions of the authority, enjoying the star comforts and ruining the State and society under the guise of ruling. 11.21. 11.20. In fact, the integrity and sovereignty of the country is mainly on the shoulders of self disciplined citizen, who is recognised as honest, hardworking and intelligent, but not on the whimsical functions of the authority, enjoying the star comforts and ruining the State and society under the guise of ruling. 11.21. Dismissal from service, removal from service and compulsory retirement from service of an honest employee is the capital punishment under the service law, as it affects the reputation and livelihood of the employee as well as the entire family. The real victims of this episode are the dependants of the employee and it is a stigma on the future of the family. The black stain is unbearable. The future is bleak to the entire family and it causes great hardship to them to move in the society. 11.22. Discipline, which is very much essential in every walk of human life, must be observed in the family, in the office and in the society and the discipline makes a man with perfection and lack of discipline will ruin the nation. Once upon a time, the society used to believe that those who are in uniform are disciplines, but, of late, it is realised that it is only myth and the reality appears to be that it is worst in maintaining equality and equal justice and if so can we call it as discipline. Those who are at the helm of affairs have to rectify the discipline in service areas. He, who speaks about discipline and points fingers at others on the ground of indiscipline, must stand as an example before taking action against others. Acting beyond one's authority is itself breach of discipline and it amounts to misconduct. The authority, whether it consists of a member of the Selection Board or sitting in comfortable cushion seats at high places and flying high should be disciplined persons, before speak out on discipline. This Court prefers death than to lead indiscipline life. 11.23. In the instant case, it is noticed that there is some indiscipline at some level with the respondents. This Court prefers death than to lead indiscipline life. 11.23. In the instant case, it is noticed that there is some indiscipline at some level with the respondents. Therefore, this order is directed to be communicated to the Cabinet Secretary of the country, to enquire into and initiate necessary action to eradicate indiscipline however so big or so high it has engineered, thereby making the honest, hardworking and efficient employees however so low or so small at the field level, who are donating sweat and blood for the cause of the society and the safety of the country. It is for the Cabinet Secretary, if necessary, to place the necessary files before the head of the State, the Chief Commander of the Armed Forces of the country, our most respectful first citizen, and also before the head of the Government, so that the two eminent personalities holding high offices of our land may take some measures to eradicate the evil. A copy of this order is directed to be marked to the Principal Secretary of His Excellency The President of India and the Prime Minister's Office. The endeavour of this Court is to protect justice and prevent injustice. If the order of this Court is wrong, there is an appellate Court to rectify, but when the order of the Selection Board was patently wrong on the fact of the record, it was not rectified and hence the intervention of this Court is sought for. 11.24. In the instant case, the petitioner contends that he is a very good officer, at least he is an officer of above average, and the heads of his section have rated him as a good officer, while recording the annual confidential reports, and he has earned worthy entries in the service record, which are commendable in nature. 11.25. It is significant to note that the respondents have not denied the above facts. In fact, the integrity of the petitioner is not doubted even through the impugned order. There are no adverse entries either mentioned in the impugned order or communicated to the petitioner or placed before this Court. 11.26. The petitioner has asserted that in all his earlier representations, he has an unblemished record. His representations have not been properly considered by the appropriate authority. An unreasoned reply has been issued. There are no adverse entries either mentioned in the impugned order or communicated to the petitioner or placed before this Court. 11.26. The petitioner has asserted that in all his earlier representations, he has an unblemished record. His representations have not been properly considered by the appropriate authority. An unreasoned reply has been issued. The fact remains that the petitioner had sent representations against the impugned order and the reply to the representations clearly discloses that the representations are not properly considered. The entries in the service record are not verified and that the same old stand has been reaffirmed. Making a representation is a valuable right and if representation is not considered properly, it will affect the career of a permanent servant. 11.27. The Apex Court, in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, referred to above, in para 11, observed as follows : "11. Though the entire service record of an employee may be considered while considering the question of his premature retirement, but if the service record of the last 10 years of his service does not indicate any deficiency in his work and conduct, it would be unjust and unreasonable to retire him prematurely on the basis of entries which may have been awarded to him prior to that period....." 11.28. In the instant case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has earned good reputation during his service and, therefore, the decision to retire him prematurely is not sustainable in law. 12.00. RESULT : 12.01. Accordingly, this Court allows this Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order, and the petitioner shall be treated as being in service without any break. However, the petitioner is permitted to receive 25% of his salary, allowances and such other benefits as may be admissible to him under the rules, as he is not entitled for full salary on the principle "No work, No pay". The respondents are directed to issue necessary orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents shall pay the costs of this Writ Petition to the petitioner and the costs are awarded at Rs.10,000/-. The respondents are directed to issue necessary orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents shall pay the costs of this Writ Petition to the petitioner and the costs are awarded at Rs.10,000/-. The Union of India is to recover the costs as well as the expenditure of this litigation from the personal account of the respective erring officials, responsible for this unhealthy litigation and making the mighty Union of India to stand before the Court for its no fault. With the result, this Writ Petition is allowed.