JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. The writ petitioner was a Panchayat Sevak and he was departmentally proceeded for several charges. One of the main charges against him was that vide letter dated 31/01/1997, the Block Development Officer, Seraiyahat, relieved him to join his transferred post in the Block Office at Nala but he did not join and, thereby, disobeyed the Government’s order and, thereafter, he remained unauthorisedly absent from 01/02/1997 to 01/12/1997. The other grave charge against the petitioner was that he defalcated the Government money to the tune of Rs. 37,298/-, which he was directed to refund but he did not refund the said amount. After joining the District Panchayati Raj Office, Dumka, on 02/12/1997, he again remained unauthorisedly absent from 03/12/1997. 2. The Enquiry Officer held that all the four charges, made against the writ petitioner stood established and proved and, thereafter, he submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Report has been annexed as Annexure-9 to this writ petition. The Deputy Commissioner, being the Disciplinary Authority, vide his order dated 07/03/2003, as contained in Annexure-12, accepted the enquiry report and, thereafter, passed the order of punishment against the petitioner directing him to compulsory retire from service on and from 07/03/2003. He further directed for recovery of the defalcated amount from the legal dues of the petitioner with interest. 3. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order as contained in Annexure-12 and has prayed for quashing the same. His further prayer is to direct the respondents to pay his arrears of salary, which has not been paid to him, for the period from; (i) January, March, April, May, June and July 1989, i.e. for about six months. (ii) July to December 1989, i.e. for about six months. (iii) January to December, 1990, i.e. for about 12 months. (iv) January to December, 1992, i.e. for about 12 months. (v) January to December, 1993, i.e. for about 12 months. (vi) May and December 1995, i.e. for two months. (vii) January, March, July and November, 1996, i.e. for four months and January 1997. His further prayer is to pay his salary from February, 1997 till date, which has also not been paid to him. 4. (v) January to December, 1993, i.e. for about 12 months. (vi) May and December 1995, i.e. for two months. (vii) January, March, July and November, 1996, i.e. for four months and January 1997. His further prayer is to pay his salary from February, 1997 till date, which has also not been paid to him. 4. The case of the petitioner is that since he fell ill and, therefore, because of his ill health he could not join his transferred post and even after his joining on 31/01/1997 after being relieved from Saraiyahat, he was not in a position to discharge his duty and, therefore, he remained absent on medical advice. In support of such plea, he submitted medical certificates. His further case is that he had made an application to go on leave from 31/01/1997 to District Panchayati Raj Officer, Dumka. 5. On the other hand, the stand of the State as it appears from the counter affidavit that the petitioner was relieved from Saraiyahat Block on 31/01/1997 by the Block Development Officer for joining in Nala Block but he did not join his transferred place of posting at Nala and he remained absent unauthorisedly from duty willfully from 01/02/1997 to 01/12/1997. He was directed by the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Dumka to join the District Panchayati Raj Office and, thereafter, he joined even on 02/12/1997 at Dumka but again he remained absent from duty from 03/12/1997 to 10/05/2001. Further stand of the respondents is that the petitioner failed to discharge the duties of construction of Scheme works and he defalcated the Government money amounting to Rs. 37,298/-and in spite of the direction to refund the said amount, he did not refund the same and he willfully remained absent from his duties and, thereby, disobeyed the order and direction of the higher authority and, thereby, committed grave misconduct. 6. Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Disciplinary Authority, retiring the petitioner compulsorily is totally against Rule 74 (b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Service Code since without following the requirements as envisaged under Rule 74 (b) the petitioner could not have been made to retire compulsorily and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. According to Mr. According to Mr. Jha, a Government Servant can be made to retire compulsorily under Rule 74 (a) or (b) only after completion of 25 years of service or after he attains the age of 50 years but there should be a finding that the efficiency or conduct of the Government Servant is not such so as to justify his retention in service. He further submitted that the respondents did not pay his salary for the period in between 1989 to 1990 and, therefore, the petitioner made a request in writing to the authorities concerned that any amount, found to be recoverable from him, may be deducted from his legal dues. 7. Mr. Jha has further challenged the finding of facts of the Enquiry Officer as well as of the Disciplinary Authority and submitted that those authorities did not consider properly the medical certificates produced by the petitioner in the Departmental proceedings, which satisfactorily explained the reasons for the absence of the petitioner from his duties. According to Mr. Jha, the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary Authority are erroneous and, as such, are liable to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned senior SC-I assisted by Miss Nehala Sharmin, submitted that the petitioner was not compulsorily retired under Rule 74 (b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Service Code, rather he has been awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement after a departmental proceeding in which charges were proved against him. The petitioner had been compulsorily retired from service under Rule 55 of the Civil Services Classification and Appeal Rule and, therefore, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner contained in Annexure-12 to the writ application. 9. So far as the first ground for challenge of Annexure-12 that the finding of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority is erroneous is concerned, in my view, those findings of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction as has been held by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of “Syed Yakoob-versus-K.S.RAdhakrishnan & Others, reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 ”. The Supreme Court has held that the writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the High Court cannot act as an appellate court over the findings of fact arrived at by the inferior courts or tribunals. Finding of facts cannot be reopened by the High Court sitting in the writ jurisdiction. Only an error of law can be corrected and not any errors of fact how so ever grave it may be. In my view, the High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot substitutes its own findings against the finding on facts arrived at by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as of the Disciplinary Authority regarding the charges against the petitioner cannot be interfered with in this writ petition. The petitioner has not pointed out any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders. 10. So far as the point raised that Annexure-12 has been passed without following the procedure laid down under Rule 74 (a) or (b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Service Code is concerned, I find from the impugned orders that no where it has been mentioned in the impugned orders that the petitioner was being compulsorily retired under Rule 74 (a) or (b) of the Bihar/ Jharkhand Service Code. For compulsorily retiring a Government Servant under Rule 74 (b), no departmental proceeding is required to be initiated. The order for compulsory retirement can be passed by the competent authority if the Government servant has completed 25 years of service or has attained the age of 50 years and has lost his efficiency and his conduct which are required to justify his retention in service then in that case he can be compulsorily retired without any departmental proceeding. Whereas in the present case after a full fledged departmental proceeding in which charges against the petitioner were found to be established, then on consideration of those findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority has awarded punishment for compulsorily retirement of the petitioner and for recovery of the amount from his legal dues and, therefore, it is apparent that the impugned order has not passed Under Rule 74 (a) or (b) of the Bihar/ Jharkhand Service Code and, therefore, the submissions of Mr. Jha is rejected. Jha is rejected. I do not find any reason to hold that the order as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition to be illegal in any manner. 11. So far as the claim of the petitioner for payment of his salary as claimed by him is concerned, if the same has not been paid to the petitioner, then certainly he is entitled to be paid the same if there is no other impediment. Accordingly, the petitioner is given liberty to file a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, for redressal of his grievance regarding payment of arrears of salary, stating in detail about his claim and grievance within a period of four weeks. If such a representation is filed by the petitioner within the said period, the authority concerned shall consider the same and pass a final order in that regard within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of such representation. If any amount, as claimed by the petitioner, is found to be payable, the same should be paid to him within a period of four weeks thereafter. With these observations and directions, this writ application stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.