JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the final show-cause notice dated 30.6.2011 issued by the Chairman, Board of Governors, Food Craft Institute, Aligarh, [in short referred to as the ‘Institute’], whereby the petitioner was required to show-cause within a period of fifteen days as to why he should not be compulsorily retired from service of the Institute with immediate effect and further requiring him to file his written submission before the Chairman of Board of Governors. 3. Shorn off unnecessary details the facts of the case are that the Institute which was established in the 1984 was registered as Societies Registration Act, 1860. Since 1984, the Institute was fully funded by the Central Government. However, in the year 1989, the financial liability of the Institute stood transferred to the Government of Uttar Pradesh. At present, the Institute is governed by the Department of Tourism, Government of Uttar Pradesh and right from its inception, the additional charge of Acting Principal was given to the Principal, University of Polytechnic, Aligarh Muslim University (respondent No. 4). 4. According to the petitioner, he is a Senior Lecturer-cum-Senior Instructor at the Institute. On 3.6.2010, the petitioner was informed that an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry into some of the irregularities. Subsequently, on 13.7.2010, a charge-sheet was issued and served upon the petitioner containing six charges under the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956, to which the petitioner submitted his comprehensive reply on 13.8.2010 denying therein the charges so levelled. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 30.6.2011 was served upon him on 4.7.2011, requiring him to show-cause within a period of fifteen days as to why he should not be compulsorily retired from the services of Institute with immediate effect and for that purpose, he must file his written submissions before the Chairman of Board of Governors within the stipulated period. Hence the instant writ petition. 5. Challenging the impugned show-cause notice dated 30.6.2011, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the decision with regard to compulsorily retiring the petitioner is premeditated as from the issuance of charge-sheet against the petitioner, his guilt was premeditated by the respondents, which is evident from the bare perusal of the version of the charge-sheet. 5. Challenging the impugned show-cause notice dated 30.6.2011, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the decision with regard to compulsorily retiring the petitioner is premeditated as from the issuance of charge-sheet against the petitioner, his guilt was premeditated by the respondents, which is evident from the bare perusal of the version of the charge-sheet. He submits that the compulsory retirement cannot be used, in lieu of departmental proceedings, as is being done in the instant case. 6. Elaborating her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while issuing the charge-sheet to the petitioner, no valid enquiry was ever done prior to issuance of the impugned show-cause notice. She submits that the impugned show-cause notice was issued against him with mala fide intention at the behest of Sri Iqbal Ali, Acting Principal of the Institute (respondent No. 4) inasmuch as right from the petitioner’s appointment, he harassed him, on both small and big issues, resulting in perpetual mental agony for the petitioner. He submits that prior to the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Acting Principal of the Institute, the petitioner had unblemished career and never had any problems. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issuance of impugned show-cause notice dated 30.6.2011 is violative of statutory provisions contained in Rule 10 read with Rule 11 and Rule 55 of the U.P. Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 as reasonable opportunity of being heard has not been accorded to the petitioner; the procedure mandated for a departmental enquiry has not been followed; no procedure has been followed; no document has been brought on record in accordance with law; no witnesses have been examined; and no enquiry report was served upon the petitioner. Thus, since no procedure has been followed, the impugned notice is arbitrary, violative of principle of natural justice and also of Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. In support of the above submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2006 (12) SCC 33 . 9. 8. In support of the above submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2006 (12) SCC 33 . 9. Refuting the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and supporting the impugned show-cause notice, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that as the petitioner was deliberately neglecting his duties and involved in dereliction of duties, indiscipline, poor results, irresponsibility, unauthorized absenteeism and insubordination and as such, after detailed deliberation in the 27th Postponed meeting held on 4.4.2010, a charge-sheet against the petitioner was approved by the Board of Governors and Mr. A.K. Singh, Principal, IHM, Lucknow was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. Accordingly, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and the same was also served upon him. In response to the charge, the petitioner has submitted his reply but neither in the reply, he prayed before the Enquiry Officer to examine or cross-examine any witness nor he provided any list of witnesses as desired by the enquiry Officer. His submission is that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was based on specific allegations supported by documentary proof annexed therewith. Therefore, plea of the petitioner that the enquiry was violative of principles of natural justice is incorrect. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that the provisions of Rules 10, 11 and 55 of the U.P. Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 relied upon by the petitioner have already been superseded by the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Therefore, the aforesaid Rules are not applicable in the instant case. He further submits that being the founder member of Institute, the petitioner does not have any immunity to commit misconduct, dereliction of duties, indiscipline, poor results, irresponsibility, unauthorized absenteeism and insubordination. These charges are severe in nature and if it is proved, the petitioner will be definitely terminated from service, but the present final show-cause notice is given for compulsory retirement keeping the petitioner’s long association with the institution. These charges are severe in nature and if it is proved, the petitioner will be definitely terminated from service, but the present final show-cause notice is given for compulsory retirement keeping the petitioner’s long association with the institution. In support of the above submissions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16572 of 2006 dated 22.11.2006); State of U.P. and others v. Vijay Kumar Jain (SLP (Civil) No. 8975/2001 dated 14.3.2002]; and Union of India and others v. K. Rajappa Menon, 1970 AIR 748 : 1969 SCR (2) 343. 11. Regarding maintainability of writ petition against show-cause notice, Counsel for the respondents has submitted that no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in view of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Union of India v. Kunisetty (supra). We find force in the submissions advanced by the Counsel for the respondents. However, by a subsequent judgment rendered in Siemens Ltd. (Supra), an exception has been carved out that where a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, if the Court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily, such hearing could not yield any fruitful purpose. It would be relevant to point out that while entertaining the writ petition on 28.7.2011, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an ad interim order in favour of the petitioner after hearing counsel for the Union of India, Standing Counsel and Counsel for the University. From the perusal of order dated 28.7.2011, it is evident that the Coordinate Bench has relied upon Siemens Ltd. (supra) and it can easily be inferred from the tenor of language that the question of maintainability of the writ petition was over-ruled. Therefore, this question cannot be raised at the time of final hearing. 12. In departmental proceedings, an oral enquiry is held to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the delinquent Government servant. The report of the Inquiry Officer is intended to serve the basis on which the disciplinary authority has to take a decision as to whether or not the imposition of any penalty on the Government servant is called for. The report of the Inquiry Officer is intended to serve the basis on which the disciplinary authority has to take a decision as to whether or not the imposition of any penalty on the Government servant is called for. It is, therefore, obligatory on the part of the Inquiry Officer to consider the entire evidence adduced during the enquiry before submitting his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Inquiry Officer should take into consideration all the circumstances and facts of the case, as a rational and prudent man, and draw his conclusions as to whether the charges are proved or not. Each conclusion should be based on cast iron logic. The Supreme Court in the case of Girdhari Lal v. Assistant Collector, 1970(2) SCC 530 , has emphasized for the need of correct assessment of evidence on an objective analysis based on cast iron logic. 13. Rule 7 (vii) of the U.P. Government Servant (Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1999 deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties and enjoins that where the charged Government Servant denies the charge, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witnesses proposed in the charge-sheet and record their oral evidence in presence of the charged Government Servant, who shall be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. After recording the aforesaid evidences, the Inquiry officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government Servant desired in his written statement to be produced in his defence. Rule 8 deals with the submission of enquiry report, whereas Rule 9 prescribes action on the enquiry report. Rule 9 (4) provides that If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its finding on all or any of charges is of the opinion that any penalty specified in Rule 3 should be imposed on the charged Government Servant, he shall give a copy of the inquiry report and his finding recorded under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 to the charged Government Servant and require him to submit his representation if he so desires, within a reasonable specified time. The Disciplinary Authority shall having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government Servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, passes a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these and communicate the same to the charged Government Servant. The Disciplinary Authority shall having regard to all the relevant records relating to the inquiry and representation of the charged Government Servant, if any, and subject to the provisions of Rule 16 of these rules, passes a reasoned order imposing one or more penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of these and communicate the same to the charged Government Servant. Rule 10 prescribes for procedure for imposing minor penalties. With regards to the imposition of minor penalties, procedure has been prescribed under Rule 10 of the said Rules. 14. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner has placed reliance upon Rules 10, 11 and 55 of the U.P. Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, which as a matter of fact are not applicable as these Rules were superseded by the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. ‘1930 Rules’ being dead in law cannot be applied as services are governed and regulated by 1999 Rules. This assertion of the respondents appears to be correct, but interestingly, the respondents themselves have not observed the procedure as prescribed under 1999 Rules, while issuing charge-sheet to the petitioner or thereafter. A perusal of the enquiry report also shows that Enquiry Officer has not examined any witness while proving the charges against the delinquent employee and it also does not emanate that any opportunity of oral hearing or cross-examination was afforded to the petitioner. Even if the petitioner has not given any list of witnesses for examination, it was the onerous duty of the Inquiry Officer to get the charges proved only after examining the witnesses and proving the documents. It would be apt to point out that copy of the enquiry report was also not furnished to the petitioner which has been admitted in the counter-affidavit and now it is said that it was an inadvertent error. Inadvertence cannot be taken as a plea to escape liability in cases of violation of principles of natural justice. 15. There is no dispute in the fact that the Disciplinary Proceedings were instituted against the petitioner and before it could reach to a logical conclusion in accordance with strict compliance of Rules, the impugned show-cause notice for compulsory retirement was issued. 15. There is no dispute in the fact that the Disciplinary Proceedings were instituted against the petitioner and before it could reach to a logical conclusion in accordance with strict compliance of Rules, the impugned show-cause notice for compulsory retirement was issued. On a number of occasions, it has been emphasised by the Apex Court that compulsory retirement cannot be chosen as a short-cut method to remove a person instead of conducting regular enquiry. Compulsory retirement has not been prescribed as a major punishment under U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Furthermore, Two different sets of procedures are prescribed for removal/dismissal/termination of a Government servant and for compulsory retirement. Perhaps the respondents have failed to understand the distinction between the two. 16. The concept of compulsory retirement came into force to remove a public servant, whose services are no longer useful to the general administration or in public interest. Fundamental Rule 56 (i) has been held to confirm absolute right to retire any Government servant on his attaining the age of 55 years, if the authorities are of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. By a catena of decisions, it has been settled that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it does not imply stigma unless such order is passed to enforce a punishment for a misconduct, as prescribed in the statutory Rules. For compulsory retirement of a Government servant, Screening Committee consisting of responsible officers is constituted for examining/assessing the entire service record and forming the opinion objectively as to whether any employee is fit to be retained in service or not. The Screening Committee is under an obligation to examine overall affect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry. 17. In State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that order of compulsory retirement could not be treated as punishment for the purpose of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion mentioned in the aforesaid case is as under: “11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are not longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. The relevant portion mentioned in the aforesaid case is as under: “11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are not longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.” 18. The action of the authority retiring the delinquent employee was based on the allegations of misconduct, which was subject-matter of the inquiry and as such, there is substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry, when such course is more desirable which seems to be covered in the present case. The above submission of the petitioner’s counsel also finds support from the law laid down by the Apex Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana through R.G. v. Ishwar Chand Jain and another, 1999 (4) SCC 579 . 19. In R.K. Panjetha v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and another, (2002) 10 SCC 590 , the order of compulsory retirement was quashed by the Apex Court in spite of the fact that twice warning was issued to appellant therein, one advice of better supervision was issued, he was awarded two censure entries, and four increments were also stopped. 19. In R.K. Panjetha v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and another, (2002) 10 SCC 590 , the order of compulsory retirement was quashed by the Apex Court in spite of the fact that twice warning was issued to appellant therein, one advice of better supervision was issued, he was awarded two censure entries, and four increments were also stopped. The Court in the said case, finding that the charge-sheet was issued and the enquiry was pending against the appellant therein, held as under : “A bare perusal of the order dated 17.12.1998 retiring the appellant compulsorily would indicate that it is stigmatic in character. Since the order ex facie is stigmatic and is punitive, it cannot be sustained.” 20. From the case of Umedbhai M. Patel (supra), it is evident that the order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry, when such course is more desirable which seems to be covered in the present case also. In the case in hand, the show-cause notice for compulsory retirement has been issued, after institution of disciplinary proceedings, but before its reaching to the logical conclusion. As averred above, compulsory retirement has not been included as major punishment under the Rules and the employer is conferred with the power to remove the deadwood under Fundamental Rules 56. Furthermore, the Disciplinary Authority, after receipt of report, instead of proceeding in accordance with the procedure laid down in U.P. Government Servant (Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1999, invented a device to oust the petitioner from service by giving impugned notice. In these circumstances, various case laws relied upon by the Counsel for the respondents, referred to above, are of no avail to him. 21. We would also like to point out that from the perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears from the sentence “the above mentioned acts on your part proved that you are guilty of wilful absenteeism and serious dereliction of duty” that the authorities have already preconceived in their mind to punish the petitioner. In K.I. Shephard v. Union of India and others, 1987 (4) SCC 431 , the Apex Court has held that once a decision has been taken there is a tendency to uphold it and representation may not yield any fruitful purpose. In K.I. Shephard v. Union of India and others, 1987 (4) SCC 431 , the Apex Court has held that once a decision has been taken there is a tendency to uphold it and representation may not yield any fruitful purpose. From the chain of events and series of correspondence as disclosed in the writ petition it can safely be inferred that the impugned show-cause notice is nothing but the final notice issued in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner to compulsorily retire him. 22. The long and short of the discussion is that the writ petition is liable to be allowed, which is hereby allowed. The impugned show-cause notice dated 30.6.2011, contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition, is set-aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed strictly in accordance with law. ——————