JUDGMENT 1. The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Bajarangi Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents as contained in Annexure-7 whereby the petitioner has been made to compulsorily retire vide resolution dated 31.07.2013. He is further aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority whereby the Appellate Authority after giving second show-cause notice has reaffirmed the decision of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure-5 dated 29.03.2013 to demonstrate that the respondents have issued show-cause notice on definite charge of lapse. For ready reference, Annexure-5 is quoted below:- 5. The petitioner, thereafter was put under suspension vide Annexure-6 dated 04.04.2014 on the specific ground mentioned in Annexure-6 and his headquarters has been fixed as Electricity Supply Division, Sasaram during the period of suspension. Annexure-6 is quoted below for ready reference:- 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submits that instead of establishing the charge for which he has been put under suspension for which show-cause has been issued vide Annexure-5 and the petitioner was put under suspension vide Annexure-6. The petitioner was made to compulsory retire on 31.07.2013 vide Annexure-7 in purported exercise of power and jurisdiction under Section 74(a) of the Bihar State Electricity Board Service Regulation, 1976 by giving three months notice and three months advance monthly payment. The petitioner, thereafter preferred an appeal and at the appellate stage, second show-cause reply was issued and thereafter the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and re-affirm the decision of compulsory retirement. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would further submits that the order of compulsory retirement is a device to frustrate the right of an employee to fair trial in a departmental proceeding. In as much as, when the petitioner was put under suspension on 04.04.2013 on certain alleged charges, instead of establishing the charges, the respondent took a decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner. Such device is not in tune with the scheme of compulsory retirement under Section 74(a) of the Bihar State Electricity Board Service Regulation, 1976 which has been adopted by the respondents. 8. Per contra, Mr. Such device is not in tune with the scheme of compulsory retirement under Section 74(a) of the Bihar State Electricity Board Service Regulation, 1976 which has been adopted by the respondents. 8. Per contra, Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Power Holding Company would submits that petitioner was compulsory retired in public interest and at the appellate stage, the petitioner was given show-cause notice and thereafter the appellate authority affirmed the decision of compulsory retirement which does not warrant interference. He further submits that compulsory retirement is not a punishment. He refers to Annexure-F to the counter affidavit to show that the petitioner who has become a deadwood has been made to compulsorily retire in public interest. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid decision is totally misconceived; firstly, the order of compulsory retirement was issued without holding any enquiry and without asking for any explanation on the issue of compulsory retirement; secondly, the effect of not holding departmental proceeding cannot be cured at the appellate stage by simply issuing second show-cause notice. Such exercise to cover up the lapses of the original power exercised by the disciplinary authority suffers from the vice of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and as such not sustainable in the eyes of law. The second show-cause notice is no substitute for the departmental proceeding when the petitioner was put under suspension vide Annexure-6. 10. In the result, the writ application is allowed and the respondents are directed to restore all the benefits to the petitioner as a regular employee up-to the age of superannuation i.e. January, 2021 and pay all the consequential benefits accordingly after adjusting the amount already paid to the petitioner after compulsory retirement. In the event the consequential benefits are not paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the petitioner would be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of actual payment. 11. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed off.