JUDGMENT 1. Heard on IA 5395/2014 an application for condonation of delay in filing this writ appeal. In the absence of opposition, we allow the application and condone the delay in filing this writ appeal. 2. Also heard on merits. 3. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 4.12.2013 passed by the writ Court in WP 3649/2009(s) [ 2014 RN 86 (HC)]. 4. The writ Court held that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner ( respondent herein ) is punitive in nature because it was based on misconduct, hence, the petitioner could not be retired compulsorily by invoking Rule 72(1) of the service regulations. 5. We have perused the order passed by the writ Court. The writ Court has discussed the facts in detail. We have also perused the order of compulsory retirement, impugned before the writ Court. 5. We have perused the order passed by the writ Court. The writ Court has discussed the facts in detail. We have also perused the order of compulsory retirement, impugned before the writ Court. The operational portion of the order reads thus:- ^^vr,o Jh HkaMkjh dks ‘kk[kk izca/kd in lacks/ku fn;k tkuk fof/k lEer gSA Jh HkaMkjh us cSad }kjk le;≤ ij fn;s oS/k vkns’k@funsZ’kksa dh voKk dh gS] mUgksusa esMhdy cksMZ ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj LokLF; ijh{k.k djkus ds cSad ds vkns’k@funsZ’k Øekad 1504 fnukad 1-6-2008 dk ikyu rRle; ugha fd;k vkSj u gh mUgksusa le;≤ izlkfjr vU; vkns’k i=ksa ds vykok vkns’k Øekad 1081 fnukad 21-5-2008 rFkk 1264 fnukad 27-5-2008 dk ikyu gh drZO;fu”V deZpkjh ds ukrs fd;k gS vfirq mudh ?kksj voKk djrs gq;s cSad ds dk;Z&Oogkj dks izfrdwy :i ls izHkkfor fd;k gSA Jh HkaMkjh us vius vfu;fer vkosnu i=ksa ds lkFk viuh chekjh laca/kh dHkh dksbZ bZykt nok vkfn ds ipsZ] tkap ijh{k.k dh fjikVsZ cSad dks is’k ugh dh vkSj u gh gkfLiVykbts’ku vkfn dh fLFkfr ls vk/kkj lwfpr fd;k vFkkZr Jh ‘kkfUrey HkaMkjh ‘kk[kk izca/kd voS/kkfud <ax ls fujraj 310 fnol fnukad 5-5-2008 ls 10-3-2009 rd LokLF; dkj.k ls vodk’k lca/kh cgkusckth dj euethZ ls dk;Z vkSj lsok ls vuqifLFkr jgs gSa rFkk cSad ds }kjk le;≤ ij tkjh oS/k vkns’k@funsZ’kks dh mUgksusa vusd voljks ij ?kksj vogsyuk dh gSA mUgksusa voKkiw.kZ@vuq’kklughu vkpj.k viuk;k gSA rFkk insu tokcnkfj;ksa ls cpus dk dqiz;kl fd;k gSA mi;qZDrkuqlkj Jh ‘kkfUrey HkaMkjh ‘kk[kk izca/kd dh lsok;s cSad fgr ls ugh gksus ls rFkk lsok vfHkys[k vuqlkj mudh tUefrfFk 6-10-1953 gksdj muds }kjk 55 o”kZ dh vk;q 5-10-2008 dks iw.kZdj ysus ls mUgsa cSad deZpkjh lsokfu;e Øekad 72 ¼,d½ ds mifu;e 2 ¼d½ ,oa ¼[k½ ds vUrxZr vkns’k tkjh djus dh fnukad ls cSad lsok ls lsokfuo`Ùk djus dk fu.kZ; lapkyd e.My us ladYi Øekad 15¼7½ fnukad 28-5-2009 ds }kjk loZlEefr ls fy;k x;k rFkk Jh Hk.Mkjh dks fu;ekuqlkj 3 ekg dh lwpuk dkyfof/k ds cnys iznÙk osru&HkÙks ds vuq:i 3 ekg ds osru&HkÙks dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkosA** 6. From perusal of the aforesaid findings, it is clear that the present respondent was retired on the basis of some misconduct. However, for that purpose, no regular enquiry was conducted. 7. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the order passed by the writ Court is in accordance with law. From perusal of the aforesaid findings, it is clear that the present respondent was retired on the basis of some misconduct. However, for that purpose, no regular enquiry was conducted. 7. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the order passed by the writ Court is in accordance with law. There is no merit in this writ appeal.