JUDGMENT : P.P. Bhatt, J. 1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or order for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 17.2.2001 at Annexure-B and also for issuance of necessary direction to the respondent authorities to give all retiral benefits, including leave salary benefit and other benefits. 2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner, who was serving as a Constable in the State Reserve Police Force, had served for more than about 32 years, but he was compulsorily retired on the ground of some irregularities committed by him while he was looking after the activities of provisional store run by the Vadodara Police Welfare Fund. The allegation against the present petitioner is that when audit was conducted, there was a shortfall of about Rs. 20,043.88 ps which was treated as temporary misappropriation as the said amount was subsequently deposited by him. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 2.3.2000 alleging temporary misappropriation of Rs. 20,043.88 ps and he was asked to submit his reply/explanation. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation/reply to the charges leveled against him vide reply dated 20.11.2000. Thereafter, upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the Commandant, S.R.P. Group I, Vadodara, vide its order dated 17.2.2001 inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said decision, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the appellate authority, i.e. the Special Additional Director General of Police, vide its order dated 30.6.2001, rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Commandant, S.R.P. Group I, Vadodara. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievance. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. P.J. Bhatt, submits that the petitioner has served under the respondents for a period of more than 32 years, and he was forced to voluntarily retire from service on the ground of some irregularities. It is submitted that the petitioner was asked to look after the provisional store run by the Vadodara Police Welfare Fund from 19.7.1994. The petitioner was directly serving under an officer, who was holding the rank of Assistant Commandant (Deputy Superintendent of Police) as he was a semi-literate. It is submitted that the petitioner was asked to look after the provisional store run by the Vadodara Police Welfare Fund from 19.7.1994. The petitioner was directly serving under an officer, who was holding the rank of Assistant Commandant (Deputy Superintendent of Police) as he was a semi-literate. The petitioner was discharging his duties diligently as per the will, wishes and directions of the superior officers, though the petitioner was not a skilled employee having experience to run the provisional store. However, since he has been assigned the said duty, he was serving with utmost sincerity and honesty. It is submitted that the aforesaid store is not a part and parcel of the Department, but it is an auxiliary branch which is made for the welfare of the police personnel. Moreover, there were no clear-cut guidelines, rules and instructions about the functioning and maintaining the accounts of the said store. Learned advocate further submits that the petitioner was asked orally to look after the affairs of the store, and no written order was given to the petitioner to discharge duties in the said store. The petitioner has studied upto 3rd Standard and had no skill of handling the work of a store. However, being an employee of a disciplined force, he had obeyed the command given by his superior officer, and had worked in the store for about 11 years. The said provision store is run since last 30 years, and as such, there was no audit by any departmental auditor or by any Government or Government approved auditor. Respondent No. 3 was asked to undertake the internal audit by a private auditor aged about more than 90 years, who was merely a matriculate, and not possessed with any knowledge of accountancy. The said auditor submitted the report in the month of January 1999 holding that the accounts were not written in the manner in which they ought to have been, and there were wrong calculations in the accounts for the period between 1995 and 1998, and misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 1,05,564.64 ps was alleged against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, some of the goods were given to officers on credit, and the amounts were still to be collected from those officers and jawans, who purchased the goods without making payment. 1,05,564.64 ps was alleged against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, some of the goods were given to officers on credit, and the amounts were still to be collected from those officers and jawans, who purchased the goods without making payment. The petitioner has explained the prevailing position, and thereafter collected the amount from those officers and jawans who purchased the goods without making payment, and deposited the said amounts. However, the petitioner was given preliminary charge sheet on 2.3.2000 holding that there was temporary misappropriation of Rs. 20,043.88 ps between 31.3.1999 and 25.5.1999. The second charge-sheet was also issued to the petitioner on 8.3.2000 with an order that recovery of Rs. 1,05,564.64 ps was ordered to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner by monthly installment of Rs. 2000/-. The petitioner made a representation against the said order praying that the audit work should be done by a Government auditor. The said action of the petitioner was treated as breach of discipline, and he was suspended on the same date by order dated 9.3.2000 and an enquiry was ordered to be initiated against him. A first information report was also lodged against him at Navapura Police Station, Vadodara, vide C.R. No. I-37 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and the same is pending for trial. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that after serving the charge sheet dated 2.3.2000, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.11.2000 and thereafter without holding any regular departmental enquiry, straight away by order dated 17.2.2001, the petitioner was awarded a major punishment of compulsory retirement. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner filed appeal before the Additional Director General of Police, but the said appeal was also dismissed by confirming the order passed by the Commandant, S.R.P. Group No. I. 5. Learned advocate Mr. P.J. Bhatt submits that the action of the respondent is in clear contravention of principles of natural justice. No regular departmental proceedings were ever conducted in accordance with law, and straight away the order of inflicting final punishment, and that too a major penalty of compulsory retirement came to be passed against the petitioner, which is ex-facie very harsh in nature, and amounts to economic death of the petitioner. No regular departmental proceedings were ever conducted in accordance with law, and straight away the order of inflicting final punishment, and that too a major penalty of compulsory retirement came to be passed against the petitioner, which is ex-facie very harsh in nature, and amounts to economic death of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is facing financial hardship and struggling to maintain the family and he is having responsibility to look after and maintain his family. But on account of sudden removal from the job by compulsorily retiring him, the petitioner had no other alternative but to approach this Court for the redressal of his grievance. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms. Ritu Guru, appearing for the State opposed the petition and tried to justify the action of the respondent of inflicting the punishment of compulsory retirement looking to the seriousness of the charges leveled against the petitioner. It is also submitted that in view of the decision given by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Diwan Singh vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others, (2015) 2 SCC 341 , sympathy or generosity in cases where the allegation of misappropriation of amount is alleged is impermissible. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also referred to some of the precedents which have been referred to in the said judgment, and submitted that the decision taken by the respondent authorities is in accordance with law, and therefore, no sympathy is required to be shown in such cases where the Government money is misappropriated, may be, for a temporary period. It is submitted that therefore the present petition has no merit and the same may be dismissed. 7. Regard being had to the above submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the petitioner, who had served for more than 32 years as a Constable in State Reserve Police Force, has been compulsorily retired without following due process of law. Compulsory retirement is specified as a major penalty under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, and before inflicting such a major penalty, a full-fledged departmental enquiry is required to be conducted. As revealed from the material on record, initial show cause notice with charges was served upon the petitioner delinquent and in response thereto, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation. Compulsory retirement is specified as a major penalty under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, and before inflicting such a major penalty, a full-fledged departmental enquiry is required to be conducted. As revealed from the material on record, initial show cause notice with charges was served upon the petitioner delinquent and in response thereto, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation. But, thereafter straight away the Commandant, S.R.P. Group I, Vadodara, had passed the final order dated 17.1.2001 inflicting punishment of compulsory retirement within a period of two months. In the said order, it is observed in paragraph No. 1 that on conclusion of the departmental enquiry, it has been decided to inflict the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. As against that, the material on record clearly indicates that no such full-fledged departmental enquiry was ever conducted. Not only that, in the said order it is mentioned that the departmental enquiry is kept in abeyance (dormant file) and there is no need to carry out any further proceedings of departmental enquiry. It further appears that being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority with a hope that the higher authority will consider his case objectively, but unfortunately, the appellate authority has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, and decided to reject the appeal, and thereby confirmed the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Commandant, S.R.P. Group I, Vadodara. On perusal of the entire record it becomes clear that there is a flagrant violation of the rules of principles of natural justice in conducting the departmental enquiry in the instant case. Compulsory retirement is a major penalty specified under the discipline and appeal rules, and without holding a full-fledged departmental enquiry and without giving reasonable opportunity to examine the witnesses, the petitioner has been asked to retire compulsorily. It appears that the respondent authorities before inflicting such a major penalty has not taken into consideration various factors, such as total length of service, overall service record, whether any misconduct is ever reported in past against the delinquent, implication of such penalty upon the person and his family, other financial and social implications, etc. 8. It appears that the respondent authorities before inflicting such a major penalty has not taken into consideration various factors, such as total length of service, overall service record, whether any misconduct is ever reported in past against the delinquent, implication of such penalty upon the person and his family, other financial and social implications, etc. 8. The decision given by the Honourable Apex Court referred to and relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondent in Diwan Singh (supra), does not help the case of the respondents looking to the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove. In the instant case, there is a gross procedural lapse in conducting the department enquiry, and it can be said that without holding regular departmental enquiry, a major penalty of compulsory retirement is inflicted upon the petitioner, and therefore, this Court is of the view that the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is required to be paid his retiral dues as also other consequential benefits taking into consideration the last salary payable to him as if he had served the respondents till the date of his superannuation. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.2.2001 passed by the Commandant, S.R.P. Group I, Vadodara, is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is now senior citizen aged about more than 70 years. The alleged amount of temporary misappropriation is also deposited after collecting the same from respective buyers, who have taken goods on credit. As such, no useful purpose will be served to conduct a fresh departmental inquiry. However, the respondents may consider this aspect before initiation of the inquiry against the petitioner. Since the impugned order is set aside, the respondent authorities are directed to pay the retiral dues to the petitioner taking into consideration the last salary payable to him as if he had served the Government till the date of his superannuation. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be paid all other consequential benefits after fixation of his pay and pension. The arrears shall be paid within two months from the date of the receipt of the order. Rule is made absolute. Petition Allowed.