JUDGMENT : Heard. 1. The petitioner herein, an erstwhile employee of the U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging his compulsory retirement from the service of the said Corporation on grounds of mala fide and absence of any material to support the same. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Routine Grade Clerk in the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board on 3.7.1981 He was promoted to the post of Junior Noter-Drafter on 6.9.1991. He claims to have been the Secretary of an Employees Association. In the year 1999 the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. was constituted in terms of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act 1999 and the services of the petitioner were transferred to the said Corporation. The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No.1925 (SS) of 1999, inter alia, challenging his transfer order and alleging large-scale corruption in the Corporation. An order for inquiry by the C.B.I. was stayed by the Supreme Court, but thereafter the matter was referred to the Vigilance Cell for inquiry. The petitioner filed another writ petition bearing No.5470 (NB) of 2000 for a C.B.I. inquiry into the alleged corrupt activities in the Corporation. Investigation was completed by the Vigilance during pendency of the writ petition and a report was submitted, which was ordered to be acted upon by this Court. The writ petition was disposed off on 20.3.2002 and the S.L.P. of the petitioner against the same was dismissed on 5.9.2003, where after the Chief Minister vide his letter dated 2.3.2008 recommended a C.B.I. inquiry into the matter, but the Union of India vide its letter dated 30 September 2008 informed the Chief Secretary, U.P. that requisite information in respect of the officers to be investigated has not been provided, moreover earlier the Vigilance Department of U.P. had inquired the matter and departmental proceedings against some of the officers had already been initiated and as the matter did not have any national or international ramifications, therefore, it was not found to be a fit case for investigation by the C.B.I. 3. After re-organization of the Corporations in the Power Sector the services of the petitioner were merged in the Jal Vidyut Nigam sometimes in the year 2003. The petitioner made certain complaints against the authorities of the Corporation during the period 2006 to 2008. 4. After re-organization of the Corporations in the Power Sector the services of the petitioner were merged in the Jal Vidyut Nigam sometimes in the year 2003. The petitioner made certain complaints against the authorities of the Corporation during the period 2006 to 2008. 4. A question appears to have been raised in the Legislative Assembly regarding the work and conduct of the petitioner, whereupon the matter appears to have been referred to the Assurance Committee of the Legislative Assembly of the State of U.P. which issued direction for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner on 18.9.2008. A Screening Committee for considering the compulsory retirement of the petitioner as also of some other persons was constituted on 22.11.2008. The Committee, referring to the direction of the Chairman of the Assurance Committee of the Legislative Assembly, took a decision to recommend his compulsory retirement on 22.1.2009. The Screening Committee comprised of three persons namely Sri Arun Kumar, Chief Engineer; Sri Sunil Kumar, Superintending Engineer and Sri Ram Asrey Verma, Accounts Officer. Against two of the aforesaid namely Sri Arun Kumar and Sri Sunil Kumar the petitioner had already submitted complaints alleging illegal activities including corruption by them, copies of which are on record. This had been done on 20.11.2006, 18.5.2007 and 6.2.2008 etc. i.e. much prior to constitution of the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee again met on 26.3.2009 and recommended compulsorily retirement of the petitioner. On 4.4.2009 the petitioner was compulsorily retired. 5. Prior to this i.e. in August 2008 disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and charge-sheet was served upon him in respect of certain charges, some of which were common to the material considered by the Screening Committee. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner after constitution of the Screening Committee i.e. in December 2008. The inquiry initiated against the petitioner in 2008 was completed by Sri Sunil Kumar who was already a Member of the Screening Committee as stated above and the charges were allegedly found to be proved. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner after constitution of the Screening Committee i.e. in December 2008. The inquiry initiated against the petitioner in 2008 was completed by Sri Sunil Kumar who was already a Member of the Screening Committee as stated above and the charges were allegedly found to be proved. Accordinly vide order dated 24.9.2011 his pension and gratuity were directed to be forfeited, although the petitioner had already been compulsorily been retired on 4.4.2009 and the relationship of master and servant had ceased and no Rule has been brought on record to show that any such order could have been passed after the petitioner’s retirement in the manner it had been done, however, upon the orders of the State Government and the C.M.D. dated 18.11.2011 the postretirement dues were ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner. 6. Surprisingly enough, Sri Arun Kumar who was the Chairman of the Screening Committee and had passed the order of compulsory retirement, filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No.12055 (MB) of 2011 allegedly in public interest challenging the sanction of pension and gratuity to the petitioner arraying him as respondent no.4 therein, which was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 7. Against the aforesaid background the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2009 challenging his compulsory retirement. 8. The petitioner contends that he had made written complaints against Sri Arun Kumar, Chief Engineer (O & M), regarding corruption and other illegalities committed by him, but surprisingly enough Sri Arun Kumar was included in the Screening Committee meant for considering and recommending the case of the employees for compulsory retirement and it is he who has passed the order retiring the petitioner compulsorily on 4.4.2009 and as this exercise has been done much after the complaints submitted by the petitioner, therefore, the decision impugned is a biased and mala fide one. Moreover, he says that the said Sri Arun Kumar even went to the extent of filing a writ petition before this court in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) bearing Writ Petition No.12055 (MB) of 2011 challenging the grant of pension to the petitioner consequent to his compulsory retirement which was dismissed by this Court with costs of Rs.10000/- vide order dated 5.12.2011 which corroborates the allegation of mala fide against him. 9. 9. He also contended that the entire exercise was initiated on the directions of the Chairman of the ‘Assurance Committee’ of the Legislative Assembly of the State, a fact which according to him was concealed by the respondents, who according to him, had manipulated the raising of the matter before the Committee of the Legislative Assembly. 10. He submitted that the said Committee had no authority to issue any such direction for his compulsory retirement and that the respondents merely acted upon the same without due application of mind, that is they surrendered their discretion in favour of the said Committee, that too, without there being any material to support such retirement. He invited the attention of the Court to various documents in support of these contentions annexed with the writ petition, supplementary affidavits and rejoinder affidavits on record. 11. He contended that although the entire service record is to be seen for the purposes of compulsory retirement, but it is the record of the last 10 years which has to be given more weight age and there was nothing adverse in the service record of the petitioner during this period. Furthermore, the entries pertaining to the initial years of service had lost their sting on account of his subsequent promotion granted in the year 1991. As regards the complaints made by him against various authorities of the Corporation, he submitted that if the officers were indulging in corrupt practices and illegalities, then he was entitled to make such complaints which could not form the basis for taking any decision for his compulsory retirement, as he cannot be penalized for having exposed corruption in the Corporation. He relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 22.9.2014 rendered in Civil Appeal No.9043 of 2014, Vijay Shanker Pandey v. Union of India & ors., in this regard, wherein an I.A.S. officer of the State of U.P. had been charge sheeted for having criticized the Government Policy etc., but the Supreme Court did not approve of the same and observed that filing of a writ petition containing allegations that the Government of India is lax in discharging its constitutional obligations of establishing the Rule of Law, cannot be said to amount to either failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty or of indulging in conduct unbecoming a Member of Service. In this regard he invited the attention of the court to various complaints submitted by him and orders passed by the High Court and Supreme Court in the writ petitions filed by him. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation on the other hand contended that the petitioner was a cantakerous employee since the very beginning. He invited attention of the court to the material against him including A.C. Rs. as also voluminous compilation of documents running into 192 pages along with requisite notes in this regard which were placed before the Screening Committee, to contend that the petitioner is in the habit of making false and frivolous complaints not only against the officers of the Corporation, but even against constitutional authorities. He invited attention of the Court to such complaints made by him as also certain reports wherein it had been held that he was in the habit of making such frivolous complaints. 13. On being confronted with the constitution of the Screening Committee comprising of Sri Arun Kumar, Chief Engineer, Sri Sunil Kumar, Superintending Engineer and Sri Ram Asrey, as, against two of the aforesaid persons the petitioner had submitted complaints much prior to initiation of the proceedings for compulsory retirement, he contended that the constitution of the Screening Committee was prescribed in a Government Order dated 23.9.2000 which though not on record was placed by him before the Court along with other government orders annexed therewith, and stated that the constitution was made accordingly. He invited the attention of the Court to Regulation (2) of the U.P.S.E.B. (Employees Retirement) (IInd Amendment) Regulations 1993, notified on 5.11.1993 to contend that these Regulations were applicable to the respondent-Corporation also and by virtue of the said Regulation the appointing authority was required to pass the order of compulsory retirement, therefore, Sri Arun Kumar who was the appropriate authority, had passed the order. 14. Though the pleadings on the part of the respondents do not say it in so many words nor was it said during the arguments advanced on their behalf, but it appears what could have been argued on behalf of the opposite parties is that the doctrine of necessity required the inclusion of Sri Arun Kumar in the Screening Committee as also the passing of the order of compulsory retirement by him, he being the appointing authority. 15. 15. Furthermore, on being confronted with the directions of the Chairman of the Assurance Committee of the State Legislative Assembly dated 18.9.2008, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation admitted that a direction had been issued by it for compulsory retirement of the petitioner whereafter the impugned exercise was undertaken, however, he contended that the material before the Screening Committee was sufficient to come to the conclusion that he was unsuitable for being retained in service and was a "deadwood" as he was not interested in performing his duties in the Corporation, rather, he was only interested in making false and frivolous complaints throughout. He relied upon various decisions viz. Nand Lal Jaiswal v. The Secy. Government of U.P., Writ Petition No.1428 (MB) of 2011; State of U.P. & Anr. V. Abhai Kishore Masta, (1995) 1 SCC 336 ; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & ors. v. Babu Lal Jangir, (2013) 10 SC 142; Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand & ors., (2010) 10 SCC 693 ; Posts and Telegraphs Board & ors. v. C.S.N. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317 ; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & ors. v. Babu Lal Jangir, (2013) 10 SCC 551 ; Jugal Chandra Saikia v. State of Assam & anr., (2003) 4 SCC 59 ; State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. v. Indra Sen Jain, AIR 1998 SC 982 ; Jagdish Prasad v. Chairman & Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation & ors., Writ Petition No.1044(MB) of 2002; J.N. Bajpai v. State of U.P., 1990(8) L.C.D. 149, to contend that the scope of interference with the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Screening Committee and the appointing authority in this regard is very limited and in the present case there was no reason for this Court to interfere in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Paragraph 2 of the U.P.S.E.B. (Employees Retirement)(Send Amendment) Regulations 1993 pertaining to compulsory retirement of employees as allegedly applicable in the Respondent-Corporation reads as under: “2(a). Notwithstanding any rule or order or practice either to be followed and except as provided otherwise in other clauses of these regulations the date of compulsory retirement of a Board’s employee is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. Notwithstanding any rule or order or practice either to be followed and except as provided otherwise in other clauses of these regulations the date of compulsory retirement of a Board’s employee is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. He may be retained in service after the age of compulsory retirement with the previous sanction of the Board in writing but must not be retained after the date on which he attains the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances: Provided that the date of compulsory retirement of Board’s employees already working immediately before the date of commencement of these regulations, viz., November 28, 1988 whom the Board had either declared under any order or regulations as belonging to the inferior service, or whose counterparts in the State Government were entitled to serve up to the age of 60 years, shall be the date on which they attain the age of 60 years. They must not be retained in service after that date except in very special circumstances and with previous sanction of the Board in writing. Explanation.- The incumbents deemed as inferior staff for purposes of retirement under these regulations, may continue to be deemed as such notwithstanding the fact that with the passage of time they get higher scale without change in designation. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), the appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate, may, at any time, by notice to Board’s employee (whether permanent or temporary), without assigning any reason, require him to retire, in public interest, provided that such employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service and has attained the age of 50 years. Any employee of the Board, also, may, by giving three months’ notice to the appointing authority, seek voluntary retirement at any time, after attaining the age of 45 years, provided that he has completed minimum qualifying service of 20 years. Any employee of the Board, also, may, by giving three months’ notice to the appointing authority, seek voluntary retirement at any time, after attaining the age of 45 years, provided that he has completed minimum qualifying service of 20 years. (c) The period of such notice shall be three months : Provided that - (i) any such Board’s employee may, by order of the appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate, without such notice or by a shorter notice be retired forthwith and on such retirement the Board’s employee shall be entitled to clam a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of the notice or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months, at the same rates at which he was drawing immediately before his retirement. (ii) It shall be open to the appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate to allow a Board’s employee to retire without any notice or by a shorter notice without requiring the Board’s employee to pay any penalty in lieu of notice : Provided further that such notice given by the Board’s employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated, shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate, provided that in the case of contemplated disciplinary proceedings the Board’s employee shall be informed before the expiry of his notice that it has not been accepted : Provided also that the notice once given by the Board’s employee under clause (b) seeks voluntary retirement shall not be withdrawn by him except with the permission of the appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate; (d) retirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with subject to the provisions of the relevant rules to Board’s employee who retires or is retired or allowed to retire under these regulations : Provided further that where an employee of the Board who voluntarily retires or is allowed to voluntarily retire under this regulation the appointing authority may allow him for the purpose of pension and gratuity, if any, the benefit of additional service of five years or of such period as he could have served if he had continued till the ordinary dates of is superannuation whichever is less. Explanation.- The decision of the appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate under clause (b) to require the Board’s employee to retire as specified herein, shall be taken if it appears to the said authority to be in the public interest, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to require any recital in the order of such decision having been taken in the public interest. 2-A. In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Board’s servant to retie under clause (b) the appointing authority or any authority to whom the appointing authority is subordinate may take into consideration any material relating to the efficiency and suitability of the Board’s servant including Service Records, Annual Confidential Reports, any report of the Vigilance Establishment or any other Inquiry Report and other relevant material. 2-B. The expression “appointing authority” means the authority which for the time being has the power to make substantive appointments to the post or service from which the Board’s employee is retired or wants to retire and the expression ‘qualifying service’ shall have the same meaning as in the relevant regulations or orders for the time being in force relating to retiring person. 2-C. very order of the appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate requiring a Board’s employee to retire forthwith under the first proviso to clause (c) or regulation shall have effect from the afternoon of the date of its issue, provided that if after the date of its issue the Board’s employee concerned bona fide and in ignorance of order performs, the duties of his office, his acts shall be deemed to be valid notwithstanding the fact of his having earlier so retired. 2-D. Nothing in these regulations or in any order, or instructions in that behalf shall be deemed to require the actual payment to the Board’s employees pay for the whole or part of the period of notice before or simultaneously with the retirement required by the order, and the failure to make such payment shall not have any effect or validity of the order.” 17. No doubt the scope of interference in matters of compulsory retirement is limited. No opportunity of hearing is required before taking such decision and to this extent the application of the principles of Natural Justice is also excluded, but it does not mean that its other facets are also excluded. The decision to compulsory retire an employee has to be based on some material and it should be a bona fide decision. No opportunity of hearing is required before taking such decision and to this extent the application of the principles of Natural Justice is also excluded, but it does not mean that its other facets are also excluded. The decision to compulsory retire an employee has to be based on some material and it should be a bona fide decision. While this Court would not examine the matter as an Appellate Court, judicial scrutiny is not excluded altogether, as for example, if the order is found to be mala fide or biased or suffering from the likelihood of bias, then this court would be justified in interfering in the matter. 18. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the earlier adverse entries preceding the petitioner's promotion need not be looked into, this is not acceptable as his promotion was not based purely on merit, but on seniority-cum-rejection of unfit and as the entire service record including such entries can very well be looked into, though more weight age is to be given to the 10 entries as regards of last 10 years, but there are some other disturbing aspects having bearing on the bona fides of the impugned exercise which have to be considered. The records reveal that the petitioner has been making complaints of corruption in the Corporation since much prior to initiation of the proceedings for his compulsory retirement and in fact in one of the writ petitions filed by him an investigation/inquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department which does appear to have found some truth therein as the said writ petition bearing No.5470 (MB) of 2000 was disposed off on 20.3.2002 with a direction to the State Government to take action in compliance of the order passed by another Bench on 28.11.2001 wherein the Court had perused the report of the Vigilance Department and had directed the State Government to proceed against those who are responsible for causing loss to the Exchequer or misconduct, in accordance with law and to report to the Court after 10 weeks. Being aggrieved against the said decision presumably as the petition was disposed off without further proceedings, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by judgment dated 5.9.2003. 19. Being aggrieved against the said decision presumably as the petition was disposed off without further proceedings, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by judgment dated 5.9.2003. 19. The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No.1428 (MB) of 2011 seeking a writ of quo warranto against the then Chairman of the Electricity Regulatory Authority, an I.A.S. Officer, on the said post, with success and his petition was allowed by this Court. 20. Thereafter the petitioner submitted various complaints between 2006 to 2008 raising issues of corruption in the Corporation, some of them being specifically directed against Sri Arun Kumar, Chief Engineer and Sri Sunil Kumar, Superintending Engineer, both of whom were included in the Screening Committee for considering petitioner’s compulsory retirement. 21. The moot point is whether these two officers against whom the petitioner had been making allegations/complaints much prior to initiation of proceedings for his compulsory retirement (Annexure No. 21 dt. 20.11.2006; Annexure No.23 dt. 18.5.2007; Annexure 24 dt. 14.1.2008; Annexure 31 dt. 6.2.2008 (page 86) to the writ petition) should have been included in the Screening Committee to consider his compulsory retirement, ignoring the requirements of Natural Justice or likelihood of bias or not ? 22. The government orders dated 24.8.1977, 26.10.1985, 6.2.1989, 21.5.1998 and 23.9.2000 relating to constitution of the Screening Committee relied upon by the respondent's counsel as already referred earlier are not statutory in nature and were not automatically applicable in the Corporation. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that these government orders were adopted by the respondent- Corporation which is an autonomous body. Nevertheless, even assuming that it is these very government orders pertaining to the constitution of Screening Committee for compulsory retirement etc. which were being followed in the Corporation, even then, they would not acquire a statutory status, therefore, the inclusion of Sri Arun Kumar and Sri Sunil Kumar in the Screening Committee to consider the petitioner's compulsory retirement does give credence to the petitioner's assertions at least to the extent of likelihood of bias, which is also a valid consideration for judicial review in such matters as it is a facet of mala fide as also violation of Natural Justice, as the exercise of compulsory retirement is required to be bona fide. 23. 23. Moreover, as regards the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that Sri Arun Kumar being the Appointing Authority he was required to be associated with the Screening Committee and also the passing of the order of compulsory retirement it does not appear to be tenable even on the basis of Doctrine of Necessity as, firstly, the government orders regarding constitution of Screening Committee are not statutory in nature and considering the material before the Court including the voluminous material which was considered by the Screening Committee there were allegations and counter allegations by the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar which were the subject-matter of consideration at various levels involving allegations of corruption etc. against him, therefore, the very material which was being considered by the Screening Committee, of which Sri Arun Kumar was a part, contained documents wherein the petitioner had levelled allegations against him also, therefore, in this scenario his inclusion in the Screening Committee was not in keeping with the age-old adage that ''justice should not only be done, but it should also appear to have been done' as also the requirement that such exercise should be bona fide i.e. free even from the likelihood of bias. 24. This is not to say that every allegation made by the petitioner may have been true, but all that the Court is trying to review is whether the action was bona fide or there was a likelihood of bias and considerations other than those germane in law had their role to play. In fact some of the recitals contained in his complaints are highly objectionable and all those could have been taken into consideration while considering his compulsory retirement, but not by a Screening Committee of which Sri Arun Kumar was a Member nor a Committee of which Sri Sunil Kumar, against whom also the petitioner had been making allegations of corruption since long was also a Member. Both these Members were subsequently subjected to disciplinary proceedings involving allegations of financial irregularities etc. and Sri Arun Kumar was even punished. These proceedings against them according to the petitioner were offshoot of his complaints. 25. The third Member was from the Account Service against whom also there were allegations of financial irregularities. Both these Members were subsequently subjected to disciplinary proceedings involving allegations of financial irregularities etc. and Sri Arun Kumar was even punished. These proceedings against them according to the petitioner were offshoot of his complaints. 25. The third Member was from the Account Service against whom also there were allegations of financial irregularities. Even if these are ignored, the fact is that the two out of the three Members were those who had valid reasons to be peeved against the petitioner because of the complaints made by him against them which were part of the material before the Screening Committee, thus, the constitution of the Screening Committee cannot be said to be fair. A fair procedure which includes appropriate constitution of the Screening Committee comprising of Members who do not have any personal interest in the matter, but only Public interest, has not been adhered in the present case. 26. As regards the inclusion of Sri Arun Kumar, not only were there allegations by the petitioner against him already existing prior to constitution of the Screening Committee, but the fact that this person filed a Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) bearing No.12055 (MB) of 2011 before this Court challenging the sanction of pension and gratuity to the petitioner herein who was arrayed as respondent No.4 therein and the fact that the said writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10000/- are in themselves sufficient to establish that the said person had an interest much more than that of a mere Member of the Screening Committee or the petitioner's Appointing Authority who could pass the order of compulsory retirement, he had a personal interest in the matter so as to go to the extent of filing the above writ petition obviously to teach a lesson to the petitioner for having complained against him. It is not the case of the respondents that there was no other officer available to be associated with the exercise nor is there any material to show that it was so. The decision of the Screening Committee dated 21.1.2009 reveals that compulsory retirement was recommended on grounds of violation of Conduct Rules of 1956, indiscipline and making of complaints against officers of the Corporation which included two Members of the Screening Committee themselves, who had reason to be personally aggrieved against the petitioner, thus, there was genuine likelihood of bias and lack of objectivity in their decision. 27. On a perusal of Regulation (2) of the Regulations 1993 pertaining to compulsory retirement, the Court finds that there is no such mandatory requirement therein that it is the Appointing Authority alone who shall pass the order of compulsory retirement. In fact, the authority to which the Appointing Authority is subordinate could also pass the order of compulsory retirement, therefore, there was no compulsion for Sri Arun Kumar to take such a decision and the 'Doctrine of Necessity' cannot be said to be attracted on this count also. The matter could have been placed before the Board and thereafter appropriate decision could have been taken objectively and bona fide. Though the 'Doctrine of Necessity' is an exception to the principle of bias or likelihood of bias, the facts of the case themselves constitute an exception to its application. 28. Sri Arun Kumar has been impleaded as an opposite party in the writ petition, but has chosen not to file his own affidavit in reply to the averments made in the petitions including the allegations of mala fide therein. However, counter affidavits on behalf of the Corporation are on record. 29. There is another aspect of the matter which has persuaded the Court to take the view as aforesaid. It appears that at the behest of the some Member of the Legislative Assembly the matter pertaining to the work and conduct of the petitioner reached the Assurance Committee of the State Legislative Assembly, as is evident from the documents on record, and a direction was issued by the Chairman of the said Committee to Sri Alok Tandon, Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation for compulsorily retiring the petitioner herein. Raising of such a matter in the Legislative Assembly, and the subsequent proceedings itself indicate that that there was more to it than what meets the eye. The respondent's counsel nor the Standing Counsel for the State could show any provision under which the Chairman of the Assurance Committee of the State Legislative Assembly or the said Committee could take a decision and direct the respondent-Corporation to compulsorily retire the petitioner. The respondent's counsel nor the Standing Counsel for the State could show any provision under which the Chairman of the Assurance Committee of the State Legislative Assembly or the said Committee could take a decision and direct the respondent-Corporation to compulsorily retire the petitioner. Even assuming the Committee did have some authority in this regard to scrutinize the work and conduct of the petitioner though it is highly doubtful, all that could be done is to recommend the matter to the Executive i.e. the government or the Corporation as the case may be, leaving it open for the concerned therein to take action as per law instead of issuing a command to the Chairman of the respondent- Corporation as has been done in the instant case. The original record of the Screening Committee which has been placed before the Court also refers to the decision of the aforesaid Assurance Committee of the State Assembly in the proceedings dated 22.1.2009, therefore, it is not in doubt that not only the process was initiated accordingly based on such directions, but the proceedings dated 22.1.2009 show that the decision of the Screening Committee to recommend the petitioner’s compulsory retirement was in fact largely based on such directions. Moreover, as is borne out from the records, the recommendation to retire the petitioner had already been made by Sri Arun Kumar on 22.1.2009 on the recommendation of the Screening Committee and the directions of the Assurance Committee of the State Legislative Assembly, but these proceedings, though mentioned in the subsequent proceedings dated 22.3.2009 albeit not in so many words, were not annexed by the official respondents with their counter affidavit nor the details thereof were disclosed, therefore, the petitioner’s contention in this regard that these facts were concealed, is correct. The proceedings dated 22.1.2009 shows that the entire exercise was on the directions of the Chairman of the Assurance Committee of the Legislative Assembly to compulsorily retire the petitioner. The proceedings dated 22.1.2009 shows that the entire exercise was on the directions of the Chairman of the Assurance Committee of the Legislative Assembly to compulsorily retire the petitioner. The concerned authorities had in fact already made up their mind to compulsorily retire the petitioner on 22.1.2009 and it is only in respect of two other persons whose A.C.Rs were not complete that their matter was deferred for the next meeting, but in the second meeting held on 26.3.2009 further reasons for compulsory retirement of the petitioner were mentioned with reference to the records so as to give it a semblance of a valid, bona fide exercise without reference to the directions of the Assurance Committee of the Legislative Assembly. The proceedings dated 22.1.2009 were not annexed by respondents with their counter affidavit which reveals the genesis of the matter and a predetermination on their part to retire the petitioner compulsorily. Had the petitioner not filed a supplementary affidavit dated 21.5.2015 and if this Court had not summoned the original records, the truth in this regard would not have come out. All this makes the bona fides of the entire exercise highly suspect. 30. As already stated hereinabove, the constitution of the Screening Committee comprising of the two Members mentioned above, cannot be said to constitute a fair procedure nor can the likelihood of bias be ruled out in such a scenario, especially in view of the subsequent conduct of Sri Arun Kumar in filing a writ petition against the petitioner challenging sanction of his pension which goes to show that he was not acting with an unbiased and objective mind. It is because of these reasons that the Principles of Natural Justice should have been kept in mind to this extent and the said two officers should not have been associated with the exercise impugned herein. 31. On a perusal of the A.C.Rs. of the petitioner no doubt initially also there had been complaints of indiscipline against him, but considering the fact that the decision to compulsorily retire him was taken in the year 2009 and the entries upto 2008 were considered, the Court finds that there were no adverse entries for the period 1988 to 2006. On a perusal of the A.C.Rs. of the petitioner no doubt initially also there had been complaints of indiscipline against him, but considering the fact that the decision to compulsorily retire him was taken in the year 2009 and the entries upto 2008 were considered, the Court finds that there were no adverse entries for the period 1988 to 2006. The only adverse entry which has been taken into consideration is of the year 2007-08 which was communicated to him after the process for his compulsory retirement had been initiated starting from the direction of the Assurance Committee and it is Sri Arun Kumar who had himself given this entry after the complaints submitted by the petitioner against him, therefore, the likelihood of bias cannot be ruled out. 32. The other material, apart from A.C. Rs. comprises of complaints of corruption etc. made by the petitioner which according to the official opposite parties were scandalous and unbecoming of an employee, but then some of these complaints were against two of the three Members of the Screening Committee namely Sri Arun Kumar and Sri Sunil Kumar who as alleged by the petitioner were subsequently proceeded departmentally by way of disciplinary action on account of such complaints. The third Member of the Screening Committee also had a tainted service record having been found guilty of financial irregularity. The record also reveals that in fact Sri Arun Kumar was also proceeded departmentally under the Disciplinary Rules with allegations of financial irregularity which were found proved, but the punishment imposed against him was only of 'censure', a fact which had been highlighted by the petitioner during his arguments. 33. The use of intemperate and objectionable language against the officers of the Corporation and constitutional authorities and lawyers cannot be justified, but then action should have been taken against the petitioner as per law by adopting a fair procedure, not in the manner it has been done. In fact, there was sufficient material to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, which in fact was initiated in August 2008/December 2008, but instead of concluding it the order of compulsory retirement was passed in the manner as aforesaid. 34. In fact, there was sufficient material to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, which in fact was initiated in August 2008/December 2008, but instead of concluding it the order of compulsory retirement was passed in the manner as aforesaid. 34. As regards the alleged misbehavior of the petitioner with Sri M.B. Pawar, General Manager, no doubt the report dated 3.12.2001 of another General Manager who was assigned inquiry in this regard opined against him, but, he also stated that as the matters pertaining to Sri Jaiswal (petitioner) were being inquired into by the State Government this issue should also be included in such inquiry and conclusions arrived at in such inquiry by the State Government may be acted upon. This report has been annexed along with one of the counter affidavits filed in March 2016, but it has not been disclosed by the official respondents that subsequently the State Government passed an order dated 5.3.2002 (Annexure R.A.-3 to the Rejoinder Affidavit by the petitioner) exonerating him and holding Sri M.B. Pawar guilty of harassing the petitioner, as also issuing a show-cause notice to the said Sri Pawar in this regard, result of which is not known. 35. The petitioner was implicated in a case of rape allegedly by an employee working under Sri Arun Kumar. Sri Arun Kumar himself wrote a letter dated 4.8.2007 to the Commission for Women to hear him in the matter as his name had been dragged by Sri Nand Lal Jaiswal (petitioner) and he had been put to disrepute. All this happened much prior to initiation of the proceedings of compulsory retirement, therefore, clearly there was animosity between the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar. 36. The entire scenario which presents before the court is indicative of an exercise which is found to be wanting for the reasons aforesaid. A fair play in such decisions is a primary requirement. The manner in which the impugned decision has been taken does not inspire confidence in the Court on the basis of permissible parameters in law. 37. There is another aspect of the matter which needs to be dealt with. Apart from the proceedings of compulsory retirement a charge sheet dated 5.8.2008 was also issued to the petitioner and served upon him on 9.12.2008 for taking disciplinary action against him wherein the same Sunil Kumar who was a Member of the Screening Committee was made the inquiry officer. Apart from the proceedings of compulsory retirement a charge sheet dated 5.8.2008 was also issued to the petitioner and served upon him on 9.12.2008 for taking disciplinary action against him wherein the same Sunil Kumar who was a Member of the Screening Committee was made the inquiry officer. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply till 10.4.2009, but before the period granted to him after extension, could expire, the order of compulsory retirement was passed. Moreover, after passing of the order of compulsory retirement it is said that an inquiry report was submitted by the same Sri Sunil Kumar finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and based thereon petitioner was denied post-retirement dues for about 32 months till directions were given by the State to release the same and even this was sought to be stopped by Sri Arun Kumar by filing a writ petition in his own name allegedly in public interest as already referred above. All this makes the entire scenario murky and reinforces the view being taken by this Court as aforesaid. 38. As regards the scandalous and reckless allegations by the petitioner against constitutional authorities, a Division Bench of this Court is already seized with the matter in proceedings initiated against him for alleged criminal contempt, which are still pending. No doubt, this material could also have been taken into consideration, but then again by adopting a fair procedure and by a properly constituted Screening Committee. Not in the manner it has been done. Compulsory retirement could not be imposed upon the petitioner by way of punishment as it is not a punishment provided in the Rules. Even at the cost of repetitions it must be emphasized that justice should not only be done, but also appear to have been done. A voice against corruption or illegality should not be stifled by personal vendetta of those whose conduct was the subject matter of the complaints. 39. At one point, considering the nature of allegations made by the petitioner against constitutional authorities after going through the documents on record, this court pondered as to whether the Court should show any indulgence to the petitioner who has cast aspersions on constitutional authorities ? 39. At one point, considering the nature of allegations made by the petitioner against constitutional authorities after going through the documents on record, this court pondered as to whether the Court should show any indulgence to the petitioner who has cast aspersions on constitutional authorities ? The reasons which persuaded the Court not to be influenced by them are, firstly, in the garb of petitioner's allegations against constitutional authorities, opposite parties can not be allowed to settle personal scores against him, secondly, the petitioner is already being proceeded before a division bench of this court for having committed criminal contempt on account of the aforesaid, thirdly, the glaring illegalities pointed out in this judgment especially the conduct of the opposite parties who undertook the impugned exercise and the violations of principal of natural justice in this regard can not be ignored, fourthly, the Courts are expected to render justice in an objective and detached manner, uninfluenced by criticism of themselves, even if unjustified. 40. In this view of the matter the impugned decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, therefore, he shall be treated in service till he attained the age of superannuation and shall be entitled to consequential benefits as per law. 41. This judgment shall have no bearing on any proceeding before any Authority or Court/Tribunal in respect of the parties herein or in respect of the complaints and allegations against any of them as the discussion in the judgment is confined to the validity of the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 42. The records retained by this Court shall be returned to the counsel of the respondent Corporation by the Bench Secretary. 43. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. 44. Parties shall bear their own costs.