ORDER : 1. The petitioner in the present writ application, is aggrieved by the Resolution of erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board, (now knows as Bihar State Power Holding Company), Patna issued vide Memo No. 2160 of the same date whereby the petitioner has been ordered to retire compulsorily in exercise of power under Rule 74 of Bihar State Electricity Board Service Regulation, 1976 read with Rule 135 of Bihar Pension Rules. 2. Rule 74 of Bihar State Electricity Board Service Regulation, 1976 reads thus:- “74. Compulsory retirement-(a) The Board or an appointing authority may, after giving an employee at least three months’ notice or three months’ salary in lieu thereof, require him in Public/Board’s interest to retire from service on the date on which an employee completes 25 years of service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. An employee may also seek voluntary retirement from the Board’s service at any time after he has completed 25 years of service or reached the age of fifty years.” 3. Parties do not dispute the fact that petitioner had completed 25 years of service and had reached the age of fifty years on the date of the order, to attract Regulation 74 of Bihar State Electricity Board Service Regulation, 1976, though such recital is not there in the impugned order. 4. Mr. Naresh Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the impugned order cannot be treated to be an order under Regulation 74 of the said Regulations as the factors relevant for passing an order under Regulation 74 have not been taken into account while passing the impugned order. He submits that the impugned order is punitive in nature and casts stigma upon the petitioner as it contains allegation of various misconduct against the petitioner. 5. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand has submitted that the order does not cast any stigma rather it deals with the reasons why the Board took a decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily under Regulation 74 of the said Regulations. 6. After having perused the said Resolution dated 04.10.2012, I find force in submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. After having perused the said Resolution dated 04.10.2012, I find force in submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The impugned order refers to allegations of several misconducts / irregularities / dereliction of duty against the petitioner, being the reason for the Board for having taken a decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily. The order makes allegation that the petitioner’s style of functioning and conduct was highly irresponsible, careless and constitutes dereliction of duty and gross misconduct. The order in my opinion, is punitive in nature and could not have been passed in garb of an order under Regulation 74 of the said Regulations. Such order could not have been passed without giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard in accordance with the provisions as contained in the said Regulations for imposing a punishment. 7. The impugned order dated 04.10.2012 is accordingly set aside. The petitioner will be entitled for consequential benefits including reinstatement of his service and backwages for the period during which he remained out of service because of the order dated 04.10.2012. 8. The Respondents will be at liberty to take administrative / disciplinary action against the petitioner on the basis of a departmental proceeding to be conducted in accordance with the Rules / Regulations. 9. This application is allowed.