JUDGMENT : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The relief sought for in both the writ petitions are interlinked and as such have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. In the first writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No. 6438 of 2018, petitioner has prayed for appropriate order for quashing the office order as contained in Memo No. 018/Prabha./01/132 – 1010, dated 06.12.2018, by which he has been transferred from the post of Senior Assistant Manager in the Head Quarter of Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. to the post of Senior Assistant Manager at Dhanbad and respondent no. 3 has been transferred from the post of Assistant Manager, Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Ranchi to the post of Assistant Manager in the Headquarter of Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Ranchi at the place of petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow him to continue on the post of Senior Manager in the Head Quarter of Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited till his retirement. 4. In another writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No.2232 of 2019, petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the office order as contained in Memo No. 494, dated 03.05.2019, by which petitioner has been compulsorily retired/superannuated from the services invoking Rule 74(Kha)(II)(III) of Jharkhand Service Code. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow him to continue in services till his superannuation. 5. The facts of the case in brief, as has been delineated in the writ petitions, is that petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Manager on 25.02.1982 in the then Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, having its Head Office at Patna. After reorganization of the State, the service of 352 employees including the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand and initially he was posted as In-charge District Manager at Giridih. Thereafter, petitioner’s service was transferred to the Headquarter of Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited at Ranchi vide Order as contained in Memo No. 179, dated 28.06.2011 in which paragraphs-2 and 3 thereof categorically shows about working of petitioner in the Headquarter of State Food and Civil Supplies Limited at Ranchi and the same was issued under the signature of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. Petitioner was also promoted as Senior Assistant Manager and is the only Senior Assistant Manager in the Corporation and time and again was posted as In-charge District Manager. Petitioner was posted in the year 2004 as In-charge District Manager, Giridih where he continued for four years and, thereafter, he was transferred to Gumla as In-charge District Manager. Petitioner was thereafter again transferred to Giridih as In-charge District Manager and while he was posted at Giridih, he was given the additional charge of District Manager, Dumka. Pursuant to the Memo No. 179, dated 28.06.2011, petitioner was also deputed in the Headquarter so that work of the Headquarter can be conducted properly. Thereafter, pursuant to Memo No. 018/Prabha./01/132-1010, dated 06.12.2018, petitioner was transferred from the post of Senior Assistant Manager in the Headquarter of Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited to the post of Senior Assistant Manager at Dhanbad. Without providing statutory period of relieving and handing over charge, petitioner was hurriedly relieved on the next day i.e. on 07.12.2018. Petitioners also filed representation but no action has been taken and though order for relieving of the petitioner has been passed but petitioner was not given any time enabling him to hand over charge and get delivered. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed W.P.(S) No. 6438 of 2018. 6. During pendency of the writ petition W.P.(S) No. 6438 of 2018, respondents did not choose to file counter affidavit and as such, this Court imposed a cost/fine of Rs.5,000/- upon the respondents. As a repercussion thereof, respondents passed an order dated 10.04.2019, suspending the petitioner with immediate effect, which has been brought on record vide I.A. No. 1788 of 2019. Thereafter, on 03.05.2019, respondents issued fresh order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner by invoking provisions of Rule 74(Kha)(II)(III) of Jharkhand Service Code which led to filing of W.P.(S) No. 2232 of 2019. 7. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, assisted by Mr. Jai Shankar Tiwary and Ms. Neeta Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that petitioner has neither been proceeded departmentally nor any show-cause notice has ever been issued against him or there is any adverse entry in his Annual Confidential Report. Petitioner is to superannuate on 31.12.2020 and in view thereof, the transfer order is not in accordance with law. Neeta Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that petitioner has neither been proceeded departmentally nor any show-cause notice has ever been issued against him or there is any adverse entry in his Annual Confidential Report. Petitioner is to superannuate on 31.12.2020 and in view thereof, the transfer order is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is the only person who has been hurriedly relieved on the very next day i.e. 07.12.2018 without providing statutory period in terms of the Service Rules whereas the other employees are allowed at least one week’s time to join the new place of posting. Action of the respondent authorities clearly smacks of malafide and just in order to accommodate Respondent No. 3, who was already working as Assistant Manager, has been posted in the Headquarter as Assistant Manager where petitioner was posted as Senior Assistant Manager. Learned counsel further submits that respondent authorities have adopted pick and choose method and out of 18 persons, they have selected only six persons for transfer. More so, out of six persons, four persons were never relieved and firth person namely Dilip Kumar Gupta, though was relieved from Ranchi in order to join Headquarter, the said order of transfer was undone by issuance of letter bearing Memo No. 148, dated 05.02.2019 by which he had again been made in-charge of Ormanjhi and Kadru Godowns at Ranchi. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has already been promoted as Senior Assistant Manager and posted at Headquarter having more Grade Pay than the other Assistant Manager working at different places with less grade pay and as such he cannot be posted at a place which is lower in status. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was at the fag end of his service career and is suffering from prostrate and intestine related problems and as such sympathetic view should have been adopted in his case. By showing the specific guideline of the State Government applicable to the Corporation, learned counsel submits that at the fag end of service career, an employee should be given posting as per his/her choice or near the home district. Learned counsel has put heavy reliance in the Judgment passed in the case of B. Vardha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131 Para-4. 8. Dr. Learned counsel has put heavy reliance in the Judgment passed in the case of B. Vardha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131 Para-4. 8. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the Provisions of Section 74(b)(ii)(iii) is a sword to eliminate all such employees who have become deadwood and incapable of performing their duties efficiently in public interest for any reason. Petitioner himself had admitted in his representation dated 08.01.2019 that after death of his wife, he was incapable to discharge his duties at Dhanbad. An employees cannot harp upon a particular posting. Transfer and posting of an employee is incidence of service and those who claims to be incapable of discharging his duties, cannot seek a particular place of posting. Impugned action against the petitioner has been taken purely in public interest and in the interest of Corporation and allegations of biasness is totally false and baseless. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the Judgment rendered in the case of (i) Badruzzaman Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2016(2) JBCJ 460 HC. (ii) Arundhwaj Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2017(1) JBCJ 407 HC 9. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner needs consideration. The issues to be decided in the instant case are: (i) Whether order of compulsory retirement can be passed without considering the past service record? (ii) Whether on application of the petitioner for allowing him to continue at a particular place of posting as he was at the fag end of service, the order of compulsory retirement may be passed? (iii) Whether it is required to assign reasons before declaring an employee a dead wood in the department? 10. (ii) Whether on application of the petitioner for allowing him to continue at a particular place of posting as he was at the fag end of service, the order of compulsory retirement may be passed? (iii) Whether it is required to assign reasons before declaring an employee a dead wood in the department? 10. While examining documents brought on record and submissions of the parties, this Court finds substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for the following facts and reasons: (I) The order of transfer has been issued but petitioner was not given appropriate time as per the Rules to join the transferred place of posting whereas other similarly situated persons were accommodated as per the rules and were afforded ample time to join the transferred place of posting. (II) Petitioner was at the fag end of his service and suffering from several ailments, made a representation before the authorities which was never considered rather an order of compulsory retirement was passed which smacks of malafide intention of the respondents authorities. Admittedly transfer is an incidence of service. Employees have no right to stay at a particular place. There is no particular law laid down for transfer but if order of transfer is punitive in nature and smacks malafide, Court cannot close its eyes and is bound to interfere. Authorities ought to have given ample time to the petitioner for joining the transferred place of posting and should have also considered plea of fag end of service and should have accommodated him at a nearby station. The respondents authorities have passed an order of compulsory retirement on the application of the petitioner for allowing him to continue at a particular place of posting, by declaring him as a dead wood. Nothing has been brought on record to show how petitioner was declared as a dead wood and was not fit to continue in the service. Before coming to a finding of declaring a person dead wood and passing an order of compulsory retirement, it would be apposite to the respondents to assess the past service record of the petitioner which has not been done in the instant case. Before coming to a finding of declaring a person dead wood and passing an order of compulsory retirement, it would be apposite to the respondents to assess the past service record of the petitioner which has not been done in the instant case. (III) The object for which Rule 74 (Kha) (II) (III) of the Jharkhand Service Code is invoked on the ground, has been set at rest in a catena of the decisions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court observing that when an employee becomes dead wood then only the aforesaid provision can be invoked. For assessing the employees as dead wood his past service record of at least 10 years as well as entire service record must be taken into consideration, which has been dealt in the following cases. (a) In the case of Badruzzaman Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in JBCJ 2016 (2) 460(H.C.), at Para 25, it has been held as under: “Under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of Service Code of 2001, for maintaining efficiency and initiative in the service, service of an employee is dispensed with when it is found that his continuance in service is not in public interest. The object behind Rule 74 (b) (ii) is to weed out dead wood from the service and also to remove the persons with doubtful integrity so as to preserve purity in judicial administration. Considering the nature of order passed under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of Service Code 2001, the same can be challenged on a limited ground that subjective satisfaction of the authority was not based on objective analysis of the material placed before it.” (b) 1992 (2) SCC 299 & 300 Para-34 (In the case of Baikunth Nath Das Vs. Chief District Medical Officer). The principle of compulsory retirement has been dealt in Para-34 viz. 34. The following principles emerges from the above discussion :- (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior. (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 to be 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 to be 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) malafide 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 important 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 un-communicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. The judicial scrutiny has not been excluded in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred here-in-above. The record needs to be considered is the entries in the confidential records/character rolls both available and subsequent promotion needs to be seen and accordingly a decision can be taken. The aforesaid principle has been completely ignored rather it was not looked into otherwise the order of compulsory retirement would not have been passed. (IV) In the case of R.L. Butail Vrs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1970) 2 SCC 876 it has been held that "An order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. The aforesaid principle has been completely ignored rather it was not looked into otherwise the order of compulsory retirement would not have been passed. (IV) In the case of R.L. Butail Vrs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1970) 2 SCC 876 it has been held that "An order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. It is actually a prerogative of the government, but it should be based on material and has to be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government." (V) There is nothing on record to suggest that the Corporation had formed any opinion to the effect that petitioner has become a dead wood, rather the order has been passed whimsically by the Corporation with a malafide intention to teach the petitioner a lesson for having challenged the order of transfer in a court of law. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus: (a) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (b) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (VI) In the instant case, decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service has not been taken after having given due regard to the entire service record of the petitioner. The service record of the petitioner has been excellent and there was no reason to draw an impression that he had become "dead wood" chopping off of which would be in the interest of better administration. (VII) Entries made in the confidential record of the petitioner has not been taken into account while passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. Had the same been taken into consideration it would have transpired that there are no adverse entries against the petitioner in the entire service period and an order of compulsory retirement cannot be passed against him. (VIII) There is no subjective satisfaction of the employer to the effect that the petitioner had become a "dead wood" and his service was no longer in the interest of the corporation. (VIII) There is no subjective satisfaction of the employer to the effect that the petitioner had become a "dead wood" and his service was no longer in the interest of the corporation. (IX) The order of compulsory retirement in the instant case had been issued as a short cut method to do away with the services of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that an order of compulsory retirement cannot be used as a short cut method. (X) In the instant case the order of compulsory retirement has been imposed as a punitive measure which has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (XI) In the case of the petitioner, his performance throughout his service is excellent and therefore during his entire tenure of service, he was given important assignments in the erstwhile State of Bihar as well as in the State of Jharkhand placing him in the Head Quarter. (XII) Petitioner, in Para-12 of the writ petition, has stated about his important assignment at different districts during the last 10 years of his service. In Para-14, the petitioner has categorically sated that he was never proceeded departmentally nor any show cause notice has been issued to him. No adverse entry was ever made in his Annual Confidential Report. (XIII) Petitioner has enclosed the office order dated 28.06.2011 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) in order to show that due to his outstanding work, he was brought from Giridih to Ranchi Head Quarter at a time when a new corporation was in the process of creation in the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, there was no complain against the petitioner for his performance during 37 years of his service and therefore the respondents cannot invoke the Provision of Rule 74 (Kha) (II) (III) of the Jharkhand Service Code. The reasons for invoking the said Provision is only on account of the fact that the petitioner has challenged the order of transfer in the writ petition in which for non-filing the counter affidavit, this court has been pleased to impose a fine of Rs. The reasons for invoking the said Provision is only on account of the fact that the petitioner has challenged the order of transfer in the writ petition in which for non-filing the counter affidavit, this court has been pleased to impose a fine of Rs. 5000/- which has been stated in Para-23 of the Counter Affidavit and therefore the action of the petitioner challenging the order in the writ petition and the subsequent order therein has invited the wrath of the respondent authorities to an extent that the order of compulsory retirement was passed which is not at all in consonance with the provision of law and therefore on this ground itself, it is fit to be quashed and set aside. (XIV) In the counter affidavit filed by the corporation, it has been admitted, though not in very clear words that there is no subjective satisfaction of the respondents before issuing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. The respondents have passed the order only on the basis of his representation wherein he had stated that he is required to lead a disciplined life, which may not be possible in any other place other than Ranchi, more so after the death of his wife. The respondents have misconstrued the said representation to mean admission on the part of the petitioner that he is not in a position to discharge his duties, which is certainly not correct. 11. As a result of aforesaid discussions, facts and circumstances of the case, judicial pronouncements the order of transfer issued vide Memo No. 018/Prabha./01/132 – 1010, dated 06.12.2018 as well as the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner issued vide Memo No. 494, dated 03.05.2019, are hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with his posting at the place where he was posted earlier i.e. the place where he was posted before issuance of Memo No. 018/Prabha./01/132 – 1010, dated 06.12.2018. However, respondents are at liberty to issue order of transfer, if so required, in accordance with law as no right has accrued to an employee to remain at a particular place. However, before passing the order, respondents shall take into consideration the fact that petitioner is at the fag end of his service. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. However, before passing the order, respondents shall take into consideration the fact that petitioner is at the fag end of his service. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ petitions stand allowed. 13. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, also stands disposed of.