JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. The petitioner, who was working as Junior Accountant in the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (in short hereinafter referred to as “O.S.R.T.C.”) has filed this application seeking to quash the order of his compulsory retirement dated 10.06.1999 under Annexure-10 passed by the Managing Director, OSRTC and reinstate him in service with all service benefits as admissible to his post. 2. The short facts of the case in hand are that the petitioner was appointed as Accounts Clerk in OSRTC on 16.12.1974 and promoted to the rank of Jr. Accountant in April, 1994. While so continuing, he was elected as the President of the State Transport Workers” Federation and indulged in Union activities. Subsequently, he applied for his voluntary retirement vide Annexure-1 dated 30.04.1998 and the same was forwarded to the Managing Director by the District Transport Manager, Cuttack on the same day vide Annexure-2. He was communicated on 26.11.1998 that his application for voluntary retirement was not accepted vide Annexure-3. When another Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced by the OSRTC, he also applied for the same vide Annexure-4 dated 15.04.1998, pursuant to which the General Manager (Admn.) prepared a list of 68 employees who were offered to go on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.01.1999 vide Annexure-6 in which the petitioner”s name found place at Sl. No.33. Instead of giving effect to the list prepared under Annexure-6 dated 05.01.1999, the General Manager (Admn.) prepared another list on 12.01.1999 vide Annexure-7 consisting of 28 persons and sent the same to the District Transport Manager (Admn.), OSRTC in which the petitioner”s name was not there. No reasons were assigned why his name was not included in the list. But, in the list prepared on 12.01.1999 indicating the names of 28 persons, the petitioner”s name was also excluded from the said list. Consequentially, the petitioner continued in service. He availed leave from 16.05.1995 to 10.08.1995 vide Annexure-8 with due permission on the ground of his illness and marriage ceremony of his sister, but beyond 10.08.1995 he had not applied for any leave or intimated his whereabouts. Consequentially, the petitioner continued in service. He availed leave from 16.05.1995 to 10.08.1995 vide Annexure-8 with due permission on the ground of his illness and marriage ceremony of his sister, but beyond 10.08.1995 he had not applied for any leave or intimated his whereabouts. All on a sudden on 20.04.1999 a letter was communicated to him to show cause by 30.04.1999 why he remained on unauthorised leave, failing which it would be deemed that he had nothing to say in the matter and the matter would be decided according to its merit besides imposing other punishments as it deemed fit. In response to the said notice of show cause, the petitioner filed an application on 05.05.1999 requesting that the statement of allegations along with memo of evidence basing on which the alleged show cause was issued may be made available to him at an early date and thereafter three weeks time be allowed to submit his explanation. But instead of providing documents called for by him, the impugned order under Annexure-10 dated 10.06.99 was passed by imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect. The period from 16.05.1995 to 10.08.1995 was treated as leave due and the period from 11.08.1995 to till date was treated as leave without pay which would not count towards his qualifying service. Hence this application. 3. Mr. S. Mohanty, on behalf of Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of punishment which was even imposed by the authority without following due procedure of law cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that no proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and only on mere asking for show cause the impugned order was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice thereby the proceeding itself is vitiated. 4. Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that the petitioner had submitted an application on 30.04.1998 stating therein that due to his private business he had lost his mind to work and he was no more interested to work in the organization as he was the proprietor of one Sangrami Gas and operating his business with more than 10 persons for which he remained on unauthorized leave from 16.05.1995 to 10.08.95. The order impugned was passed by the Managing Director with due application of mind. The order impugned was passed by the Managing Director with due application of mind. Therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order. 5. On the basis of the above facts pleaded, materials available on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is found that admittedly the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme floated by the OSRTC. Though initially his name was found place against Sl. No.33 in Annexure-6 dated 05.01.1999, for the reasons best known to the authority his name was deleted in Annexure-7 dated 12.01.1999. In order to regulating the service conditions of OSRTC employees, a regulation has been prepared called “The Orissa State Road Transport Corporation Employees” (Classification, Recruitment and Condition of Service) Regulations, 1978 (in short hereinafter referred to 1978 Regulation). The said regulation prescribes the procedure for imposing any penalty. Under regulation 130 (b)(iii) “compulsory retirement” has been classified under category of major punishment. Clause 141 of the regulation which provides the procedure for the imposition of major penalties reads as follows: “141. Procedure for imposing major penalties- (1) No order imposing on an employee any of the major penalties specified in item (vi) to (x) of Regulation 138 shall be passed except after enquiry is held as far as may be in the manner hereinafter provided. 2. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges and communicated to the employee charged together with a statement of the allegations or a copy of the report on which each charge is based, and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. 3. The employee shall be required within such time as may be considered by the Inquiring Authority reasonable adequate in the circumstances of the case (ordinarily not less than 15 clear days and not more than 30 days from the date he receives the charge sheet) to put his written statement for his defence. 4. 3. The employee shall be required within such time as may be considered by the Inquiring Authority reasonable adequate in the circumstances of the case (ordinarily not less than 15 clear days and not more than 30 days from the date he receives the charge sheet) to put his written statement for his defence. 4. The employee charged shall, if he so desires, for the purpose of preparing defence, be permitted to inspect and take extract from such official records as he may specify: Provided that the Inquiring Authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse him such access if in its opinion- (a) Such records are not relevant for the purpose, or (b) It is against the public interest to allow access thereto such records. 5. If within the prescribed time or such further time as the Inquiring Authority may allow, no written statement in defence is filed and no request for being heard in person is received, the Inquiring authority may proceed to record his findings without holding any further inquiry. (a) The disciplinary authority may nominate any person to present the case in support of the charges before the authority inquiring into the charges (hereinafter referred to as the “Inquiring Authority”. The Corporation servant shall have the right to engage a legal practitioner to present his case if the person nominated by the disciplinary authority, as aforesaid, is a legal practitioner. The inquiry authority may also, with due regard to the circumstance of the case, permit the Corporation employee to be represented by a legal practitioner. 6. If the employee charged desires to be heard in person, or if the Inquiring Authority considers it necessary to hear him in person, he shall be so heard by the Inquiring authority. If he desires that an oral inquiry be held of if the Inquiring Authority or the authority competent to impose the penalty considers it necessary, an oral inquiry may be held by the Inquiring authority into such charges as are not admitted. 7. The Inquiring Authority shall in the course of the inquiry consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material to the charges. The employee concerned shall be entitled to cross-examine any witness examined by the Inquiring Authority. If the Inquiring Authority declines to examine any witness, it shall record its reasons in writing. 8. The Inquiring Authority shall in the course of the inquiry consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material to the charges. The employee concerned shall be entitled to cross-examine any witness examined by the Inquiring Authority. If the Inquiring Authority declines to examine any witness, it shall record its reasons in writing. 8. The statements made by the employee and the witnesses, if any, shall be recorded either in English or in the language in which they are made, according to as the Inquiring Authority may decide. The Inquiring authority may put such questions as it may deem necessary to the employee or to the witnesses, to elicit information on any points which, in its opinion, require clarification. The statement so recorded shall be read over to the deponent and, if necessary, explained to him in the language in which it was given. It shall be corrected, if necessary or the Inquiring Authority may make a memorandum of the objection, if any, raised by the deponent and add such remarks as it may consider necessary. The statements shall then be signed by the deponent, by the employee charged, if he himself is not the deponent, and by the Inquiring Authority. The employee charged may, if he so desires, be allowed to take copies of the statements so recorded. 9. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry, record its findings on each of the charges with reasons therefore, and forward the proceedings of the inquiry to the authority competent to impose the penalty, unless the Inquiring authority is itself competent to do so. The record of proceedings of the inquiry shall consist of- (a) the charges framed against the employee along with the statement of allegations furnished to him under regulation 141 (2). (b) Written statement for defence, if any. (c) The oral evidence taken in the course of inquiry (d) The documentary evidence considered in the course of inquiry. (e) The orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary authority and Inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry. (f) A report setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefor. (g) The recommendations of the Inquiring Authority, if any, regarding the punishment to be inflicted. (e) The orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary authority and Inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry. (f) A report setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefor. (g) The recommendations of the Inquiring Authority, if any, regarding the punishment to be inflicted. (10) If in the opinion of the Inquiring Authority the proceedings of the inquiring establish charges different from those originally framed, it may record findings on such charges, provided that findings on such charges shall not be recorded unless the employee has admitted the facts constituting them or has had an opportunity of defending himself against them. (11) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses 1 to 5 of Regulation 138 should be imposed, it shall pass orders in the case. (12) If the disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in such clauses 6 to 10 of Regulation 138 above should be imposed, it shall (a) furnish to the employee a copy of the report of the inquiring authority and where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring authority and (b) give him a notice stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may with to make against the proposed penalty provided that such representation shall be based only on the evidence adduced during the enquiry.” 6. As it appears, major penalty like compulsory retirement has been imposed on the petitioner. The procedure envisaged under regulation 141 was not followed while imposing such penalty. Since the procedure is envisaged for imposition of penalty under regulation 141, for non-adherance thereof the entire proceeding is vitiated. Regulation 143 mandates to supply enquiry report to the delinquent officer. In the present case before the major penalty like compulsory retirement was passed, no enquiry report was provided to the petitioner. Therefore, due to non compliance of the requirement of 1978 regulation, the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner is vitiated. As per the provisions contained in Regulation 156 of 1978 regulations appeal against the punishment lies to the Chairman. In the present case before the major penalty like compulsory retirement was passed, no enquiry report was provided to the petitioner. Therefore, due to non compliance of the requirement of 1978 regulation, the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner is vitiated. As per the provisions contained in Regulation 156 of 1978 regulations appeal against the punishment lies to the Chairman. The impugned order having been passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, no useful purpose would be served if the petitioner prefers appeal to the Chairman. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the order imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. 7. On the basis of materials available on record, it appears that without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report as required by Regulation 141 of the 1978 Regulations, major penalty i.e. compulsory retirement has been imposed by the authority. In that view of matter the order of compulsory retirement passed by the authority under Annexure-10 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 8. Allegation has been made that the petitioner was no more interested to work in the organization as he had indulged in his private business by engaging 10 persons and on that presumption the action was taken by the authority compulsorily retire him. Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the ground of remaining on unauthorized leave. The petitioner asked for necessary documents to give effective reply. But, instead of supplying the same, the authority passed the impugned order which is violative of principles of natural justice. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the impugned order under Annexure-10 suffers from non-compliance of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as there was non- observance of requirement of Regulation 141 of the 1978 regulations. Therefore, the order so passed cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is quashed and the opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service grant him all consequential benefits with continuity of service for computation of his retirement benefits. Therefore, the order so passed cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is quashed and the opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service grant him all consequential benefits with continuity of service for computation of his retirement benefits. Since the petitioner has not rendered any service from 10.06.99 till date because of the compulsory retirement, vide order passed under Annexure-10, he may not be entitled to get any financial benefits as the OSRTC is facing financial crunch for its existence, but his pay would be notionally fixed in the scale of pay admissible to the post till his date of joining whereafter he should be paid his salary regularly as admissible to the post and extended all other benefits in accordance with law. 10. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed.