JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Assistant Manager with the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Nawada (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). He is aggrieved by the office order bearing Memo No. 2259 dated 10.4.2003, Annexure-1, whereunder he has been compulsorily retired with immediate effect by the Managing Director of the Corporation in exercise of the powers contained in Rule 29(b) of the Service Conduct and Disciplinary Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Perusal of the office order further indicates that thereunder direction has been given to the Incharge District Manager, Nawada to pay the petitioner advance salary for three months in lieu of notice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order bearing Memo No. 2259 dated 10.4.2003, Annexure-1, on the ground that perusal of the said order does not indicate that petitioner is a dead wood within the meaning of Rule 29(b) of the Rules which is also evident from his service-book as thereunder no adverse entry has been made except one in compliance of the office order bearing Memo No. 5096 dated 16.8.2001, Annexure-3. It is submitted with reference to the aforesaid fact that in the light of the provisions contained in Rule 29(b) of the Rules the Managing Director is authorized to compulsorily retire an employee of the Corporation provided he is of the opinion that the employee is either inefficient or corrupt or medically unfit. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from perusal of the impugned office order bearing Memo No. 2259 dated 10.4.2003, Annexure-1, it does not appear that petitioner is either inefficient or corrupt or medically unfit and in appreciation of such fact the order impugned is fit to be set aside. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal Pandey V/s. The High Court of Judicature at Patna and Anr., reported in 2006(1) PLJR 617 . Reliance in this connection has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal Pandey V/s. The High Court of Judicature at Patna and Anr., reported in 2006(1) PLJR 617 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that compulsory retirement of the petitioner was made with effect from the date of the impugned office order i.e. 10.4.2003 without giving the petitioner three months notice or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, as is required under Rule 29(b) of the Rules and for failure to serve the notice or pay salary in lieu of the notice, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. In this connection it is pointed out that cheque bearing no. 987677 dated 2.5.2003 of Rs. 35,996/- for payment of three months salary, allowances to the petitioner was prepared on 2.5.2003 and on account of failure of the authorities to pay the notice-pay alongwith the impugned order provisions of Rule 29(b) of the Rules has been violated. Reliance in this connection is placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rana Abhai Singh V/s. The Honble High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors., reported in 2006(3) PLJR 400 paragraph 36. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order is actually an order of petitioners removal from the service of the Corporation on the allegation and charges levelled against him which is evident from the averments made in paragraphs 19, 21, 22, 23, 28 of the counter affidavit and paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit that petitioner was involved in blackmarketing of wheat and other foodgrains in connivance with other officials and the P.D.S. dealers. In view of the aforesaid allegations petitioner was required to have been given adequate opportunity to defend himself instead of being compulsorily retired. Had such opportunity been given to the petitioner, he would have established before the authorities that the allegations are wholly false. Reliance in this connection is placed on the orders of this Court dated 24.6.2004 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 514 of 2004, Annexure-5, whereunder the First Information Report lodged against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide Roh P.S. Case No. 35 of 2001 was quashed. Reliance in this connection is placed on the orders of this Court dated 24.6.2004 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 514 of 2004, Annexure-5, whereunder the First Information Report lodged against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide Roh P.S. Case No. 35 of 2001 was quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the office order bearing Memo No. 6937 dated 11.9.2004, Annexure-6, whereunder Brij Kishore Prasad Sinha, Deputy Manager of the Corporation at Dhanbad who was also made accused in a case of blackmarketing of the food- grains meant for the Antyodaya Scheme was let-off lightly by the Managing Director after being warned with direction not to be paid salary beyond the Subsistence Allowance for the period of suspension after the order taking cognizance was quashed by the High Court under orders dated 26.2.2004 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1239 of 2003, petitioner, however, has been dealt with severely and has been made to compulsorily.retire. In the background of the aforesaid submission learned counsel tor the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Ekbal Sharma V/s. State of Bihar and Another, reported in 1990(2) PLJR (S.C.) 60 and submitted that from the averments made in paragraphs 19, 21, 22, 23, 28 of the counter affidavit and paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit there does not appear to be any dispute that petitioner has been compulsorily retired from the service of the Corporation on the basis of the allcations of black-marketing and should have been given opportunity to defend the charges alleged against him. For failure to grant the petitioner adequate opportunity to defend, the order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is fit to be set aside. 3. For failure to grant the petitioner adequate opportunity to defend, the order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is fit to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the Corporation has defended the impugned order bearing Memo No. 2259 dated 10.4.2003, Annexure-1, whereunder petitioner has been compulsorily retired from the service of the Corporation and submitted that after receipt of the report from the Collector, Nawada that petitioner is involved in black- marketing of the foodgrains meant for distribution amongst Below the Poverty Line members of the society and that he remained in jail custody for about a year, the matter was considered by the Managing Director on 7, 8.4.2003 in the light of the provisions contained in Rule 29(b) of the Rules and petitioner was directed to be compulsorily retired from the service of the Corporation. In the light of the directions of the Managing Director the Chief of Administration issued the impugned order compuisorily retiring the petitioner from the service of the Corporation. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Corporation that while approving the proposal to compulsorily retire the petitioner from the service of the Corporation his entire service record together with the fact that he was in jail custody for about a year including the earlier punishment order dated 16.8.2001, Annexure-3 was taken into account and direction was given on 7, 8.4.2003 to compulsorily retire the petitioner on the basis of which the impugned order compulsorily retiring the petitioner dated 10.4.2003 was issued. Learned counsel for the Corporation further submitted that three months salary in lieu of notice is not required to be paid simultaneously at the time of service of the order of compulsory retirement. In this connection placing reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another V/s. Raj Kishore Bhargava, reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC 92 learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that issue of cheque dated 2.5.2003 is substantial compliance of the requirement providing for payment of three months salary in lieu of notice and this Court should not take any exception of the fact that cheque for payment of salary for the notice period was not served on the petitioner simultaneously with the order. Learned counsel for the Corporation further submitted that an order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. Learned counsel for the Corporation further submitted that an order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. It is the prerogative of the employer to compulsorily retire its employee on the basis of the materials available in the service record. The order of compulsory retirement has to be passed on the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the employer. Materials on the basis of which the employee has been compulsorily retired is, however, required to be disclosed on enquiry by the Court. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others V/s. Dulal Dutt, reported in (1993)2 S.C.C. 179 . With reference to the aforesaid judgment in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Dulal Dutt (supra) learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that in the instant case the order of compulsory retirement was passed taking into account the report of the Collector, Nawada that petitioner is indulging in blackmarketing of foodgrains meant for distribution amongst the Below the Poverty Line families and that he remained in jail custody for about one year after a First Information Report was lodged against him for the offence under Section 7 of the Act as also the fact that he was punished earlier vide punishment order dated 16.8.2001, Annexure-3. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order bearing Memo No. 2259 dated 10.4.2003, Annexure-1, whereunder petitioner has been compulsorily retired together with the. contents of Rule 29(b) of the Rules, I am of the view that Managing Director is authorized to form an opinion about the utility of the employees serving the Corporation and if he is of the opinion that any employee is either inefficient or corrupt or medically unfit, the Managing Director is vested with the authority to superannuate him. contents of Rule 29(b) of the Rules, I am of the view that Managing Director is authorized to form an opinion about the utility of the employees serving the Corporation and if he is of the opinion that any employee is either inefficient or corrupt or medically unfit, the Managing Director is vested with the authority to superannuate him. In the instant case, report was received from the Collector, Nawada that petitioner is indulging in black- marketing of foodgrain meant for distribution to the Below the Poverty Line families and that he has been taken in jail custody in connection with the First Information Report lodged against him vide Roh P.S. Case No. 35 of 2001 which was considered by the Managing Director on 7,8.4.2003 in the light of the service record of the petitioner including the punishment order dated 16.8.2001, Annexure-3 and direction was made to compulsory retire the petitioner on the basis of which impugned order bearing Memo No. 2259 dated 10.4.2003, Annexure-1, compulsorily retiring the petitioner was issued. Later, cheque dated 2.5.2003 for a sum of Rs. 35,996/- by way of three months salary and allowances payable to the petitioner was also issued and thereby substantial compliance of Rule 29(b) of the Rules was made. Later, cheque dated 2.5.2003 for a sum of Rs. 35,996/- by way of three months salary and allowances payable to the petitioner was also issued and thereby substantial compliance of Rule 29(b) of the Rules was made. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the subsequent order of the High Court dated 24.6.2004, Annexure-5, whereunder the First Information Report lodged against him vide Roh P.S. Case No. 35 of 2001 was quashed on the technical ground that his prosecution under Section 7 of the Act cannot proceed as he is covered by the exemption granted under Clause 31(2)(b) and (c) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 may also not be of any assistance to the petitioner as on the date on which the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed against the petitioner the First Information Report vide Roh P.S.Case No. 35 of 2001 was very much in existence and taking into account the allegations made therein as also the fact that petitioner was in jail custody for about a year and was also punished earlier vide punishment order dated 16.8.2001, Annexure-3 the Managing Director formed his opinion that petitioner has become a dead wood, such opinion of the Managing Director based on relevant consideration cannot be faulted by this Court on the basis of the subsequent order dated 24.6.2004, Annexure-5 as also the office order of the Corporation bearing Memo No. 6937 dated 11.9.2004, Annexure-6, whereunder Sri Brij Kishore Prasad Sinha, Deputy Manager has been let-off after being warned with further direction that he shall not be allowed to draw anything beyond the Subsistence Allowance in view of the order of the High Court quashing the order taking cognizance against him. Reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal Pandey vs. The High Court of Judicature at Patna and Another (supra) appears to be misplaced as the case of Ram Gopal Pandey was recommended for compulsory retirement by the Standing Committee of the High Court on the basis of allegation Correctness whereof was enquired into and petitioner was exonerated of the charge, besides earned promotion on merit. The Division Bench taking into account the aforesaid facts set aside the order of compulsory retirement. In the case in hand besides the allegation of blackmarketing of foodgrains by. The Division Bench taking into account the aforesaid facts set aside the order of compulsory retirement. In the case in hand besides the allegation of blackmarketing of foodgrains by. the petitioner, as reported by the Collector, Nawada petitioner has also been punished earlier vide punishment order dated 16.8.2001, Annexure-3, the Managing Director of the Corporation being subjectively satisfied that he is required to be compulsorily retired from the service of the Corporation under Rule 29(b) of the Rules directed for his compulsory retirement. Similarly, reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the other judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Ekbal Sharma vs. State of Bihar and Another (supra) is also misplaced as in the said case the order of compulsory retirement was set aside on the ground that it proceeded on the basis of the allegations which were yet to be enquired into and the service holder Ram Ekbal Sharma was never punished earlier. In the instant case petitioner having been punished earlier and the punishment order having become final, the Managing Director having considered the punishment order as also the allegations made by the Collector, Nawada proceeded to compulsorily retire the petitioner, such action of the Managing Director taken on the basis of the materials placed on record cannot be faulted by this Court. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not see any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed.