JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent- Corporation. 2. By impugned order dated 28.3.2002, the Managing Director of Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) intimated the petitioner through an office order passed pursuant to decision of the Board of Directors that petitioner had been compulsorily retired under Rule 72(a) of the relevant Regulations with effect from afternoon of 31st March, 2002. 3. From the earlier correspondences made by the Managing Director with the petitioner and from petitioners reply which are on record as Annexures-3, 3/1, 3/2 and Annexure-4 series, this court finds that the Managing Director gave opportunity to the petitioner to show the work done by him for recovery of money from the borrowers. Petitioners reply that he was incharge of Zone-3 which had made best recovery did not satisfy the Managing Director because according to the stand of the Managing Director there were two Deputy Managers in Zone-3 and the work of recovery was to the credit of other Deputy Manager, the petitioner was taking credit only on account of being Incharge. On behalf of petitioner it has been submitted that there was no clear cut demarcation of work between the two Deputy Managers and the recovery made in Zone-3 should have been treat as made under the leadership and supervision of petitioner who was Incharge of Zone-3. 4. Although the submission is quite attractive but from the correspondence made by the Managing Director, this Court finds that due opportunity was given to the petitioner to show whether he had worked for recovery in case of any of the 69 borrowers in Zone-3 but he could not point out a single case where he had worked and effected recovery. The business of the Corporation is to advance loans and recovery of the same is naturally a matter of utmost importance. In such matters it was for the Managing Director to assess the work of each officer like the petitioner and this Court is not in a position to take up that task upon itself. The business of the Corporation is to advance loans and recovery of the same is naturally a matter of utmost importance. In such matters it was for the Managing Director to assess the work of each officer like the petitioner and this Court is not in a position to take up that task upon itself. The assessment of petitioners work by the Managing Director and the Board of Directors was after giving opportunity to the petitioner to place the relevant facts and thereafter the impugned decision appears to have been taken that petitioner should be compulsorily retired in terms of Rule 72(a) which authorizes compulsory retirement of employees in Public/ Corporation interest. 5. No doubt petitioners earlier Character Roll Entries were good but compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. The assessment of petitioners performance was in a fair manner and there is no material to hold that decision of the respondent to retire him in Public/Corporation interest is arbitrary or otherwise vitiated in law or in facts. 6. In the facts of the case, this Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.