ORDER : In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for setting aside the notification contained in memo no. 1897(S), dated 28.03.2011 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi pertaining to compulsory retirement under Rule 74(a) of Jharkhand Service Code. Initially the order of suspension vide notification dated 28.09.2010 was challenged in the instant writ application, and subsequently, by I.A No. 2922 of 2012, the order of compulsory retirement, vide notification dated 28.3.2011 relating to compulsory retirement of the petitioner, was filed to be incorporated in the amended writ petition by order dated 3.7.2014 and the interlocutory application has been allowed. 2. The factual matrix, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the then Public Works Department, Government of Bihar in the year 1980 and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2000 and after bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the petitioner was finally placed in the State of Jharkhand. While continuing and discharging his duty as Executive Engineer, he was placed under suspension. Prior to the notification, the report was called for and report was submitted before the conducting officer against the petitioner. The petitioner has been aggrieved by the order passed on 28.3.2011 pertaining to compulsory retirement from the services under the provisions of Rule 74(a) of Jharkhand Service Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the impugned order of compulsory retirement, vide Annexure-4, has been passed in derogation of Rule 74(a) of Jharkhand Service Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 74(a) does not say regarding the compulsory retirement on public interest, whereas Rule 74(b)(ii) envisages compulsory retirement on public interest. But Rule 74(b)(ii) says that the appointing authority concerned may after giving a Government servant at least three month's previous notice in writing, or an amount equal to three month's pay and allowance in lieu of such notice require him in public interest, to retire from service. In the instant case, such a provision has not been complied so the impugned order of compulsory retirement is de hors the provisions of Rule 74(a) of Jharkhand Service Code. In the instant case, such a provision has not been complied so the impugned order of compulsory retirement is de hors the provisions of Rule 74(a) of Jharkhand Service Code. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order of punishment under Annexure-4 is stigmatic and punitive one which is against the settled proposition of law as per the decision in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das & Another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baribado & Another reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-4 which says that it is quite clear that the alleged mis-conduct has been mentioned in the impugned order which is stigmatic and punitive, therefore, the said impugned order is not legally sustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was supposed to retire on 31.03.2011 but by virtue of impugned order dated 28.3.2011 alleged misconduct has been mentioned which is stigmatic which is against the celebrated judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to in the later paragraph. 3. Earlier counter-affidavit has been filed controverting the averments made in the writ application but no counter-affidavit has been filed to the amended petition. Mr. D. K. Dubey, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents vehemently submits that the impugned order of Annexure-4 passed in terms of Rule 74(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code empowers the respondents to verify and to see the conduct of the respondents before passing of the order of punishment for compulsory retirement. Therefore, considering all the aspects of the matter, the competent authority after taking approval by the State passed the impugned order as contained in Annexure-4, therefore, no illegality and no infirmity has been committed while passing the impugned order. 4. After hearing the respective parties at length and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is justified due to the following facts and reasons: (i) That admittedly the petitioner was supposed to attain the age of superannuation on 31st March, 2011 but prior to 3 days, the order of compulsory retirement was passed vide order under Annexure-4 dated 28.3.2011, causing serious prejudice and visiting the petitioner with civil consequences. Moreover the impugned order under Annexure-4 is not in consonance of Rule 74 (a) of the Jharkhand Service Code. Moreover the impugned order under Annexure-4 is not in consonance of Rule 74 (a) of the Jharkhand Service Code. For better appreciation, Rule 74(a)(b)(ii) is quoted hereinunder :- (ii) The appointing authority concerned may after giving a Government servant at least three month's previous notice in writing, or an amount equal to three month's pay and allowance in lieu of such notice, require him in public interest, to retire from service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. (ii) On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is quite clear that there is no doubt or debate that Rule 74 can be invoked in public interest, provided that three months' pay of salary for disbursing to the concerned employee. In the instant case, the same having not been done, sustainability of the impugned order has been questioned which in my considered view is in favour of the petitioner. (iii) On perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-4, it appears that the order has been passed fraught with stigma of misconduct which is against the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das & Another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baribado & Another reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299 paragraph 34 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinunder :- 34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion : (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary — in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter — of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above. (iv) Therefore, the impugned order of compulsory retirement under Annexure-4 cannot be justified in view of the provisions under Rule 74(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code read with the decisions mentioned hereinabove. As a result, the impugned order of punishment, under Annexure-4 dated 28.03.2011, being assailable is not legally sustainable. 5. As a cumulative effect of facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements as logical sequitur to the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs, the respondents are directed to pay the due amount to the admissible pay for 28.3.2011 to 31.3.2011, the impugned letter dated 28.3.2011 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi pertaining to compulsory retirement is quashed and set aside and pensionary benefits be disbursed taking into account date of retirement as 31.03.2011. All this exercise be undertaken by the respondents and be complied within 4 months from the date of receipt/communication of copy of order. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed.