Order This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.4.2006 passed in W.P.(S) No. 713 of 2006 by which the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the impugned order passed against the appellant by which he was dismissed from service on the basis of the charge of retaining a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in his custody for a period of 3-4 days although subsequently he deposited the money. It was held in the departmental proceeding that he was guilty of embezzlement of the amount which he was required to deposit in the Treasury. 2. The charge levelled against the petitioner-appellant herein was to the effect that while he was posted as a Clerk in the Civil Court at Deoghar he committed grave misconduct by accepting a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from one Anjani Mishra for the assurance that he would get the case disposed of favourably which was pending in the Court of IlIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoghar. 3. A departmental proceeding was initiated for the charge levelled against the petitioner-appellant, in which, the petitioner-appellant duly participated and finally the charge levelled against him was found to have been proved. Consequently, a show cause notice was served upon him for imposing punishment and the petitioner-appellant is alleged to have prayed for granting him pardon and to release him from the proceeding. The Disciplinary Authority, however, refused to condone this grave charge and finally passed the order for his dismissal. The delinquent appellant, thereafter, assailed the order of punishment of his dismissal by filing the writ petition before the learned Single Judge which was dismissed as already referred to hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant initially assailed the order of punishment imposed against the appellant and submitted that the petitioner-appellant had not admitted his guilt as per the charge levelled against him, yet he had sought pardon merely to cut short the proceeding. 5. However, we find no substance in the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant as the petitioner-appellant had been granted ample opportunity to demolish the charge at the stage of enquiry and on the basis of the evidence, it could be not established that the charge levelled against the delinquent appellant was unfounded. We thus find no reason to accept the contention of the petitionerappellant specially when the appellant had also returned a sum of Rs. We thus find no reason to accept the contention of the petitionerappellant specially when the appellant had also returned a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to Anjani Mishra from which it could be safely inferred that the amount of Rs 25,000/- in fact, had been accepted by him which was finally returned. Thus, in substance, he admitted the charge that he had accepted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with an illegal motive, thereby committing gross misconduct. Hence we reject the contention that the charge levelled against the appellant could not be held to have been established on any ground including the fact that he had not admitted his guilt. 6. However, on the question of sentence, we thought it just and proper and in the interest of equity to consider the order of dismissal as to whether the same can be held to be disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. On this count also we could not persuade ourselves to infer that in spite of the serious charge, referred to hereinabove, the punishment of dismissal required interference. Nevertheless, we could not overlook that the appellant, prior to his dismissal, had discharged his duty for long 27 years as L.D.C. in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Deoghar and prior to this incident, no complaint had ever been lodged against him. Considering his past record and the fact that he had served for 27 long years as a low paid employee, we noticed that if the order of dismissal is allowed to be sustained, the appellant will not be entitled-even to pensionary benefits, We, therefore, considered whether the order of dismissal could be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement, and for doing so, we are supported in our view by the ratio of the decisions delivered in the matter of Hussaini vs. Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Others reported in (1985)1 S.C.C. 120 wherein the learned Judges of the Supreme Court had been pleased to convert the order of dismissal into an order of compulsory retirement on compassionate ground as the appellant therein was a low paid Government servant and was dismissed after serving a period of 20 years. 7. 7. We find that a similar situation exists in the instant appeal also as the appellant, Ajay Shankar Lal was also a low-paid employee who had discharged duties for 27 years as L.D.C. in the Court of District and Sessions Judge and upholding the order of dismissal on the one hand would result into denial of the remaining period of service which otherwise would have been available to him and on the other hand he would also be deprived of his pensionary benefit thus resulting into imposition of dual punishment. 8. Hence, we deem it just and proper to direct the authorities to substitute the order of dismissal of the appellant into an order of compulsory retirement, after which he would be entitled to the pensionary benefits to be calculated from the date of the order passed by us i.e. 12.9.2008. Consequently the appellant shall be entitled to pensionary benefits to be counted from 12th September, 2008. Prior to this period, he cannot be held entitled to pensionary benefits as his order of dismissal has been ordered to be converted into an order of compulsory retirement only from the date of the order of this court which is 12.9.2008. 9. In order to make the position explicitly clear, we direct that the pensionary benefit from the date of the order of dismissal until the order of this court, shall not be held payable to the appellant since the order of dismissal was effective during this period and has been allowed to be converted into an or.der of compulsory retirement only by our order in this regard which is 12.9.2008. 10. This appeal thus is partly allowed in the light of the direction and observation recorded hereinabove.