JUDGMENT S.N. Hussain & Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. Both the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common order as common points are involved in both the appeals and the appellants and respondent-State of Bihar therein are also the same. 2. Both the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by the authorities of the Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for the sake of brevity), out of which the first is directed against order dated 29.09.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7615 of 2000, whereas the second is directed against order dated 26.07.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.5895 of 2000. By both the aforesaid impugned orders the writ petitions filed by the two writ petitioners, who are private respondents in these appeals, had been allowed and the orders of their compulsory retirement from service of the Bank were quashed directing the respondents to the writ petition, who are appellants in these two Letters Patent Appeals, to forthwith reinstate the writ petitioner of the first appeal in service with full back wages and to make payments of arrears of salary to the writ petitioner of second appeal until the date of his superannuation. 3. Respondent no.1 of the first Letters Patent Appeal had filed C.W.J.C. No.7615 of 2000 challenging order dated 29.03.2000 of the Deputy Managing Director (Administration) of the Bank issued under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Bihar Service Code compulsorily retiring him from service from the afternoon of 31.03.2000 on the ground of public interest and his attainment of 50 years of age and also for direction to the respondents to the writ petition to allow him to continue as Field Officer in the Bank till he attains the age of 58 years. 4. 4. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 29.09.2000 on the ground that there were serious charges against the petitioner on the basis of which he was compulsorily retired and hence it was not a simple case of compulsory retirement in terms of provisions contained in Rule 74 (b) of the Bihar Service Code rather it was a result of past conduct as well as less recovery of loan by him about which the charge had not been enquired into or found proved by the Enquiry Officer in the report. Hence it was held that the impugned order was not bonafide and was illegal, unwarranted and liable to be quashed. 5. Respondent no.2 of the second Letters Patent Appeal had filed C.W.J.C. No.5895 of 2000 challenging order dated 25.03.2000 of the Administrator of the Bank communicated by Deputy Managing Director of the Bank issued under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Bihar Service Code compulsorily retiring him from service with effect from 31.03.2000 on the ground of public interest and also for all consequential benefits till the date of his superannuation. 6. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2010 on the same ground relying upon the aforesaid decision of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29.09.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No.7615 of 2000. 7. Both the aforesaid orders of learned Single Judge are under challenge before this Court, one in each of the abovementioned Letters Patent Appeals. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record including the two orders of learned Single Judge which are under challenge in the instant Letters Patent Appeals, it is quite apparent that the basis of compulsory retirement of both the writ petitioners is the same i.e. Resolution of the Committee dated 07.08.1999 in which it was resolved that the two writ petitioners along with some other similarly situated persons were to be compulsorily retired with immediate effect on the only ground that the recovery made by them was even less than 10%. No other ground had been taken in the said Resolution of the Committee for compulsory retirement of the aforesaid two writ petitioners. No other ground had been taken in the said Resolution of the Committee for compulsory retirement of the aforesaid two writ petitioners. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that learned Single Judges while passing the two impugned orders erred on facts by assuming that they were compulsorily retired as punishment for other acts in which case proper notice, opportunity to show-cause, enquiry and departmental proceeding etc. were required. In the instant case no such allegation or charges were the basis of compulsory retirement of the petitioners and hence it cannot be termed as punishment. 9. So far the question of punishment is concerned, the writ petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.7615 of 2000 was suspended on the charge of forging signature of one of the loanee member and drawing amount thereof and in the departmental proceeding the enquiry report was submitted and after giving opportunity by way of second show-cause, order dated 13.10.1999 had been passed awarding punishment of caution and stoppage of increment. Hence the said matter was altogether a different matter having no concern with the compulsory retirement of the said petitioner. 10. On the other hand, the order of compulsory retirement was completely distinct and different from the aforesaid proceeding and it was independently passed under the provisions of Rule 74 (b)(ii) of the General Conditions of Service provided in Bihar Service Code. 11. Furthermore, from any material whatsoever the writ petitioners could not prove that the ground on which they were compulsorily retired by the Committee of the Bank in its Resolution dated 07.08.1999 i.e. their recovery were less than 10%, was wrong. Hence, it is proved that the petitioners, whose recoveries were less than 10% of the loan, were nothing but dead wood causing great loss to the Bank and only for such persons the Bank had evolved the said policy. 12. It may be noted in this regard that the Bank procures loans from NABARD on lesser rate of interest and distributes loans to the farmers on certain higher rate of interest and the difference of interest is the only source of income of the Bank. 12. It may be noted in this regard that the Bank procures loans from NABARD on lesser rate of interest and distributes loans to the farmers on certain higher rate of interest and the difference of interest is the only source of income of the Bank. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time the Bank was facing serious financial crunch and heavy amount remained outstanding dues of NABARD due to which memorandum of understanding was executed by the authorities of the State Government, the NABARD and the Bank in which stress was given upon recovery of loan and only such branches of the Bank were to become eligible for disbursement of loan which had recovered at least 40% of the loan as per the fixed target. Hence the rate of recovery was very important not only for repayment of loans but also for existence of the branches of the Bank. 13. Thus for the aforesaid reasons no provision of law can legally take away the right of the Bank to retire compulsorily those who have reached the age of 50 years and whose retirement was in the interest of the Bank. This view finds supports from a decision of the Apex Court in case of Mundrika Dubey and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 458. 14. The aforesaid view has also been taken in a plethora of decisions by several Benches of this Court, which have been annexed to the memorandum of Letters Patent Appeal No.2012 of 2010, but the impugned orders have been passed by learned Single Judges completely ignoring the aforesaid settled principle of law. 15. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no option left but to allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders and dismiss the aforesaid two writ petitions bearing C.W.J.C. No.7615 of 2000 and C.W.J.C. No.5895 of 2000.