JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 22.09.2006 issued by the Managing Director, respondent No. 2, communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.09.2006 as contained in memo No. 1252, issued under the signature of respondent No. 4, whereby the order of punishment given to the petitioner has been converted into compulsory retirement. Further prayer has been made to forthwith reinstate the petitioner to his post with all back wages and consequential benefits including seniority. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner joined the service with the Bihar State Financial Corporation (for short “BSFC”) on 11.10.1982. After having put in years of satisfactory service, he was posted as Assistant Office Superintendent (AOS) at the BSFC Branch at Palamau, Daltonganj in the year 1987. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 30.05.1997 when he was posted at Palamau, wherein he was charged with misconduct and negligence while dealing with loan file of M/s. Katha & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Chandwa within the meaning of Article 39(ii) of the Bihar State Financial Corporation Staff Regulation, 1965 in as much as two bank drafts, details of which are given in the charge-sheet, were sent from the Head Office to the Branch Manager, Palamau through letter dated 23.10.1987, one in favour of the concern and the other in favour of SBI, Chandwa in the account of the concern but both the drafts were handed over to the concern in connivance with the promoter though the draft in favour of SBI, Chandwa for an amount off of Rs.2,73,915/- was to be paid to the Bank, thereby acting in a highly irresponsible manner. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that draft in question had been prepared in favour of the SBI, Chandwa-A/c Shree Katha & Chemical Pvt. Ltd., which in fact has dimwittedly been deposited in that account as per the instruction of Head Office and as such, the only allegation which is made out is that instead of the same having been deposited by the BSFC Branch at Palamau, the same was deposited by the promoter. The end result being the same i.e. the amount being credited as per instructions on the draft. The end result being the same i.e. the amount being credited as per instructions on the draft. The petitioner immediately replied to the show-cause before the Conducting Officer, respondent No. 3, vide his representation dated 11.12.1997. In his show-cause reply, the petitioner stated that the draft in question was drawn in favour of SBI Chandwa Branch – A/C Shree Katha & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and that the Branch Manager, SBI Chandwa has confirmed vide his letter dated 14.09.1990 that the aforesaid draft had in fact been credited in the account of Shree Katha & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. as per instructions on the draft, which was also confirmed by the AGM, SBI Ranchi vide his letter dated 30.12.1992, stating that the draft had been credited in the account in whose favour it was made. 5. The petitioner further stated that the draft had been prepared at the Head Office level at Patna in favour of Shree Katha & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. but the same could not have been credited in the account of M/s. Chandwa Wood Products as it was not drawn in its favour and hence, no fault can be found in the act of either the petitioner or BSFC Branch at Palamau or the SBI Chandwa. The instruction given by the Head Office were duly and diligently followed by the petitioner. The same stand was taken by the petitioner in the representation to the respondent No. 3 dated 09.07.1997. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though he canvassed all the points before the Conducting Officer but the Conducting Officer found both the charges proved against him on the ground that he had acted in a highly irresponsible manner by not depositing the draft in the Bank himself, without considering the fact that the end result in any event would have been the same as the draft was in fact deposited in the account of the concern in whose favour it was made. 6. The Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report against which the petitioner filed his detailed representation dated 23.03.1998 for his exoneration from the charges as they were baseless and misconceived. Upon receipt of his representation, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment of disposal from service against the petitioner, against which the petitioner moved before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(S). Upon receipt of his representation, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment of disposal from service against the petitioner, against which the petitioner moved before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(S). No. 4347 of 2001, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.01.2005 and the same was allowed in favour of the petitioner quashing the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remitting back the writ petition for passing a fresh order on quantum of punishment. Against the said order, the petitioner had filed Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 153 of 2005, which was dismissed with an observation and direction to the respondents to pass final order as the same was not passed in view of the order passed in W.P.(S). No. 4347 of 2001. When no decision was taken in light of order passed in LPA No. 153 of 2005, the petitioner was constrained to file an contempt application being Contempt Case (C) No. 212 of 2006 and during the pendency of the said contempt application, final order dated 22.09.2006 was issued under the signature of respondent No. 2 whereby the order of dismissal has been converted into compulsory retirement with financial punishment and hence, the present writ petition has been preferred challenging the said order. 7. Mr. Dilip Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously urges that the order dated 22.09.2006 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the Managing Director, respondent No. 2, has passed the order without any application of mind and since this Hon’ble Court has remanded back the matter for reconsideration on quantum of punishment but converting the punishment of dismissal into compulsory retirement is merely an eye wash as the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved against him, as he was working as Account Superintendent, a lower post and has discharged his duty as per the instruction of the higher authority and the bank draft which has been dispatched in his office from the Head Office has simply been deposited in the Bank and hence, there is no financial loss to the BSFC but these facts were not appreciated to make an escape goat since the Head Office is at fault and in order to defend themselves, the petitioner has been punished. Mr. Mr. Jerath further argued that the entire exercise of respondents-authorities is arbitrary and unreasonable and resultantly, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. The Inquiry Officer has found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The department has already taken a lenient view by converting the order of disposal from service into compulsory retirement of course with financial punishment. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that petitioner violated the instruction in as much as instead of depositing the bank draft at SBI Chandwa Branch, the same was handed over to the person concerned. Learned counsel further argued that this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 27.01.2005, passed in W.P.(S). No. 4347 of 2001, remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority for passing fresh order on the quantum of punishment and it is the petitioner, who himself had challenged the order dated 27.01.2005 by filing LPA No. 153 of 2005 and the Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 02.02.2006, dismissed the said LPA, wherein the order of punishment against the petitioner has not been quashed. Learned counsel justified the order passed by the Managing Director and submitted that after due deliberation on the whole issues, the charges of grave misconduct and serious irregularities were proved in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and hence, punishment of dismissal and financial punishment passed vide office order No. 8/2002-2003, as contained in memo No. 611 dated 31.05.2002, were adequate. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Already this Court, after due deliberation on the whole issues, had passed orders on earlier occasions remitting the matter back before the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration on quantum of punishment. Though the petitioner was held guilty by the Inquiry Officer, there is no charge of defalcation of money or financial irregularities against him. The only charge against the petitioner was of violating the instructions in as much as instead of depositing the draft with the SBI, the same was handed over to the person concerned. Though the petitioner was held guilty by the Inquiry Officer, there is no charge of defalcation of money or financial irregularities against him. The only charge against the petitioner was of violating the instructions in as much as instead of depositing the draft with the SBI, the same was handed over to the person concerned. As there was no financial irregularities neither any financial loss caused to the Management, the matter was remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration on quantum of punishment. Though the punishment of dismissal was turned into that of compulsory retirement with financial punishment, the same cannot be termed to be adequate. Accordingly, the order of punishment is modified to the extent that no interference is required in the order of compulsory retirement, since the petitioner has already been punished and the punishment of compulsory retirement remains intact with modification by deleting financial punishment. 10. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 22.09.2006, issued by the Managing Director, respondent No. 2, communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.09.2006, as contained in memo No. 1252, is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent that punishment of compulsory retirement will remain intact with effect from the date of punishment awarded by the Managing Director. However, the financial punishment passed vide office order No. 8/2002-2003, as contained in memo No. 611 dated 31.05.2002, is altered and quashed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands partly allowed.