ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 (Annex.P/1) passed by the Managing Director Chhattisgarh Text Book Corporation Raipur with all consequential benefits. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Supervisor in India Security Press, Ministry of Finance, Government of India in the year 1988. The petitioner was voluntarily retired in the year 2007 and thereafter he was sent on deputation in the Chhattisgarh text Book Corporation, where he had worked as Manager Printing till 14.01.2009. The advertisement was issued by Chhattisgarh Text Book Corporation for appointment on the post of Printing Manager, the petitioner was holding an experience and was also eligible for the post of printing manager. The petitioner has also applied for the said post and was selected as a Printing Manager and he was appointed against the vacant sanctioned post of Printing Manager vide order dated 19.08.2008 (ANNEXURE P/2). The petitioner joined the post on 27.01.2009 and till then he was working but vide impugned order dated 15.12.2017, he was compulsory retired from service without issuing any notice, against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of compulsory retirement has been passed without assigning any reason and without any application of mind. The impugned order of compulsory retirement has been passed without there being any material and for extraneous reasons. The authorities have failed to appreciate that though the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, but it should not be passed for ulterior motive. The State Government has issued the guidelines vide circular dated 25.04.2017 and in the said circular certain guidelines have been made for passing an order of compulsory retirement. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the category of said circular. The State Government has issued the guidelines vide circular dated 25.04.2017 and in the said circular certain guidelines have been made for passing an order of compulsory retirement. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the category of said circular. The guidelines issued on 25.04.2017 would not be applied in case of an employee who is working in the society and who is not the government servant, because Rule 42(b) of Pension Rules 1976 and Rule 56 of Fundamental Rule are not applicable to the employees of the text Book Corporation. There were absolutely no adverse entry in the petitioner's confidential report. The scrutiny committee did not recommend the compulsory retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner had only less than 8 years to retire from service. The petitioner has completed 8 years of his service. The confidential report from 2009 to 2015 are up to the mark and no adverse remarks have been made. The order of compulsory retirement has been passed contrary to Rule 56 of Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules and Rule 42 of Chhattisgarh Pension Rules 1976. Even those rules are not applicable to the petitioner. The screening committee constituted by the State Government has not considered the overall records of the petitioner and no reason has been assigned for passing of an order of compulsory retirement. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs Union of India and another, reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 165 and State of Punjab vs Bandeep Singh and others, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 and this Court’s order dated 03.05.2019 passed in WPS No.5384/2017 in case of M. M. Chaturvedi vs State of Chhattisgarh and others and order dated 17.09.2020 passed in WPS No.5914/2017 in case of G. C. Nahata vs State of Chhattisgarh and others. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submission made by the petitioners’ counsel and jointly submit that on 31/08/2017 Respondent Corporation received an instruction dated 2/08/2017 issued by State Government Department of school education, Naya Raipur with respect of the compulsory retirement of the employee working under the Textbook Corporation who has completed the age of 50 year or completed the 20 years of service. As per the guidelines, respondent Corporation constituted the scrutiny committee of three members for the compliance of instructions with regard to compulsory retirement of the employee who has completed the age of 50 years or completed the 20 years of service and vide letter dated 15/09/2017 informed to the Secretary, Department of school Education, Raipur. On 19/09/2017 respondent corporation in its meeting of scrutiny committee short listed the names of 15 employee who have completed the age of 50 years or service tenure of 20 years, in which petitioner stood at serial no.1. On 06/10/2017 the Executive Committee of respondent Corporation consist of 8 members recommended the name of petitioner and other for Compulsory Retirement as per the report of scrutiny committee dated 19/09/2017. There after on 16/10/2017 Respondent Corporation wrote a letter for seeking permission to the secretary with respect of compulsory retirement of the petitioner herein and others. On 20/11/2017 Department of School Education, Government of Chhattisgarh through its letter given the permission for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. After obtaining the permission, vide order impugned dated 15/12/2017, petitioner has been compulsory retired from the services of the Respondent Corporation. They further submit that as per the direction and instruction of the state government dated 16/05/2017, the scrutiny committee of Respondent Corporation has dully verified the service record of the petitioner and after scrutinizing the same a detailed report was prepared by the scrutiny committee in which the petitioner was found eligible for compulsory retirement as per the guidelines of state Government. During the pendency of present writ petition, State Government issued circulars dated 05/05/2018 and 23/05 2018, thereafter petitioner filed a representation before the respondent corporation under the light of instruction of state government. In compliance of the above circular, on 15/06/2018 Corporation constituted the committee and call for the meeting on 18/06/2018. After Scrutiny on 30/07/2018, petitioner's representation has been rejected by the corporation. The petitioner has made baseless allegation in the entire petition and the same is devoid of merits. Respondent Corporation after following due process has ordered for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner has made baseless allegation in the entire petition and the same is devoid of merits. Respondent Corporation after following due process has ordered for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Printing Manager vide order dated 19.08.2008 and he joined his services in the said post on 27.01.2009 and by impugned order dated 15.12.2017 (Annexure- P/1), the petitioner was compulsory retired by the respondent Department. 7. The petitioner has filed his annual confidential reports (ACRs) and documents of departmental enquiry. It is not disputed by the respondents that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in July, 2017, but the respondents did not file any enquiry report or punishment order against the petitioner. The respondents have filed minutes of the meeting of Scrutiny Committee vide Annexure-R/4. It is not disputed by the respondents that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in July, 2017, but the respondents did not file any enquiry report or punishment order against the petitioner. The respondents have filed minutes of the meeting of Scrutiny Committee vide Annexure-R/4. The remarks against the petitioner is as under:- dz- vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh uke inuke lsok vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij laf{kIr fooj.k ,oa vuq'kalk 01 Jh uohu dqekj JhokLro izac/kd eqnz.k Jh uohu dqekj JhokLro dh orZeku vk;q 54 o”kZ gS ijUrq NRrhlढ+ ikB~;iqLrd fuxe esa 8 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ fd, gSA bl e/; yxHkx 286 fnuksa dk vodk’k xzg.k fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ebZ 2015 ls 2017 rd iSj gM~Mh ds QzSDpj ds bykt ds uke ls 158 fnuksa dk esfMdy vodk'k fy;k x;k gSA bUgsa yxHkx 20 dkj.k crkvks uksfVl iznk; fd, x, gSA fuxe varxZr fMtkbZuj ds in ij HkrhZ dh izfdz;k esa tkWp@Nkuchu fu"BkiwoZd ugh djus ds dkj.k foHkkxh; tkWp lafLFkr dh xbZ Fkh ftlesa vkjksi fl} ik, tkus ds dkj.k 2 okf"kZd osru o`f} vlap;h izHkko ls jksdh xbZA orZeku esa muds Lo;a ds izca/kd eqnz.k ds in ij fu;e fo:} HkrhZ dh f'kdk;r ij foHkkxh; tkWp lafLFkr gSA lkFk gh Jh lkbZ vkQlsV iVuk] VsDuks fizVlZ jk;iqj] izxfr fizVlZ jk;iqj ds iath;u nLrkostksa esa dqVjpuk dj iath;u fd, tkus ds fo"k; esa foHkkxh; tkWp py jgh gS ftlesa lacaf/kr ds }kjk vlg;ksx fd;k tk jgk gSA o"kZ 2010&11 ls 2014&15 rd budk xksiuh; pfj=koyh esa erkadu *cgqr vPNk* gS A o"kZ 2015&16 ,ao 2016&17 dk erkadu izi= vizkIr gSA fdUrq nLrkostksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd mUgsa dk;kZy; }kjk psrkouh i= Hkh tkjh fd;k x;k gS vkSj fu;eksa ds foijhr vf/kdka’k vftZr vodk’k ds vkosnu i= vodk'k lekfIr mijkar gh izLrqr fd, x, gS] tks fd fu;e fo:} gS ,ao lacaf/kr ds LosPNkpkjh O;ogkj dk izek.k gSA budh fu;qfDr ds fo:} fu;qfDr izfdz;k esa 'kkfey dqN vkosndks }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa Hkh okn izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk tks yafcr gSA Bhd blh izdkj foHkkxh; tkWp ds nkSjku fuxe ds fo:} Lo;a Jh JhokLro }kjk MCY;w-ih-lh-,l-ua 3719@2017] MCY;w-ih-lh-,l-ua 3721@2017 izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftls Lo;a ds }kjk okil ys fy;k x;kA ogh muds LFkkukarj.k ds laca/k esa Lo;a muds }kjk MCY;w-ihlh-,l-ua 3765@2017 izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk ftls ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt dj fn;k gSA fuxe varxZr eqnz.k@dkxt dh fufonk ds nkSjku egRoiw.k le;kof/k esa iwoZ o"kksZ esa vodk’k ysdj dk;Z izHkkfor fd;k x;k gSA lkFk gh lkbZ vkQlsV iVuk] VsDuks fiaVlZ jk;iqj] izxfr fiaVlZ jk;iqj ds iath;u esa LdSu dj dkxt yxk;k tkdj iath;u djus ds laca/k esa tkWp dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, Jh JhokLro dks ikB~;iqLrd fuxe eq[;ky; ls i`Fkd iqLrd fMiks txnyiqj inLFk fd;k x;kA Jh JhokLro dh ikB~iqLrd fuxe esa inLFkkiuk ls iwoZ flD;ksfjVh izsl ukfld esa inLFkkiuk jghA tgkW ls LosfPNd lsok fuo`fRr izkIr dj lacaf/kr ds }kjk isa’ku izkIr fd;k tk jgk gS bldh lwpuk bl dk;kZy; dks vkt i;ZUr lacaf/kr dh }kjk ugh nh xbZ gSA Jh JhokLro dh dk;Z{kerk dk Lrj larks"ktud ugha gSA 8. As per Annexure-R/11, the petitioner has filed detailed representation before the Competent Authority but his representation was dismissed by the Competent Authority. The main objection of the petitioner is that the respondent society is a registered society under the Society Registration Adhiniyam, 1973 and employees of the societies are governed by the rules namely the Chhattisgarh Text Book Corporation/Employee Cadre Recruitment of Service and Promotion Rules, 2005, but no such rule provides for order of compulsory retirement. 9. This Court in similar case M. M. Chaturvedi (supra) observed in paras 16, 17, 21, 22 & 23 as under:- “16. So far as law in respect of compulsory retirement is concerned, the Supreme Court as early as in 1998 (7) SCC 310 in case of M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India & Ors. in paragraph 13 held as under : “13. While viewing this case from the next angle for judicial scrutiny i.e. want of evidence or material to reach such a conclusion, we may add that want of any material is almost equivalent to the next situation that from the available materials no reasonable man would reach such a conclusion. While evaluating the materials the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The maxim "Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus" (no one becomes dishonest all on a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is a salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of Administrative Law. The authorities should not keep the eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of "doubtful integrity" it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer with the label "doubtful integrity". 17. Again in case of Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2001(2)SCC 305 dealing on the issue of compulsory retirement held in paragraph 12 as under: “12. There must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer with the label "doubtful integrity". 17. Again in case of Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2001(2)SCC 305 dealing on the issue of compulsory retirement held in paragraph 12 as under: “12. Compulsory retirement in service jurisprudence has two meanings. Under the various disciplinary rules, compulsory retirement is one of the penalties inflicted on a delinquent government servant consequent upon a finding of guilt being recorded in disciplinary proceedings. Such penalty involves stigma and cannot be inflicted except by following procedure prescribed by the relevant rules or consistently with the principles of natural justice if the field for inflicting such penalty be not occupied by any rules. Such compulsory retirement in the case of a government servant must also withstand the scrutiny of Article 311 of the Constitution. Then there are service rules, such as Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules, which confer on the Government or the appropriate authority, an absolute (but not arbitrary) right to retire a government servant on his attaining a particular age or on his having completed a certain number of years of service on formation of an opinion that in public interest it is necessary to compulsorily retire a government servant.................................So long as the opinion forming basis of the order for compulsory retirement in public interest is formed bonafide, the opinion cannot be ordinarily interfered with by a judicial forum. Such an order may be subjected to judicial review on very limited grounds such as the order being malafide, based on no material or on collateral grounds or having been passed by an authority not competent to do so. 21. The Supreme Court in case of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation & Anr. Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar & Ors. 2009(15)SCC 221, referring to all the previous decisions on the issue in paragraph 35 has summarized or laid down the situations under which the order of compulsory retirement could be interfered with, held as under : “35. The law relating to compulsory retirement in public interest is no long res integra. The provisions had been made principally for weeding out dead wood. The law relating to compulsory retirement in public interest is no long res integra. The provisions had been made principally for weeding out dead wood. An order of compulsory retirement being not penal in nature can be subjected to judicial review inter alia : i. when it is based on no material; ii. when it is arbitrary ; iii. when it is without application of mind; and iv. when there is no evidence in support of the case.” 22. Recently again in case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Babu Lal Jangir, 2013 (10) SCC 551 the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 23 & 24 as under: “23. The principle of law which is clarified and stands crystallized after the judgment in Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.; 2010 (10) SCC 693 is that after the promotion of an employee the adverse entries prior thereto would have no relevance and can be treated as wiped off when the case of the government employee is to be considered for further promotion. However, this ‘washed off theory’ will have no application when case of an employee is being assessed to determine whether he is fit to be retained in service or requires to be given compulsory retirement. The rationale given is that since such an assessment is based on “entire service record”, there is no question of not taking into consideration an earlier old adverse entries or record of the old period. We may hasten to add that while such a record can be taken into consideration, at the same time, the service record of the immediate past period will have to be given due credence and weightage. For example, as against some very old adverse entries where the immediate past record shows exemplary performance, ignoring such a record of recent past and acting only on the basis of old adverse entries, to retire a person will be a clear example of arbitrary exercise of power. However, if old record pertains to integrity of a person then that may be sufficient to justify the order of premature retirement of the government servant. 24. Having taken note of the correct principles which need to be applied, we can safely conclude that the order of the High Court based solely on the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra was not correct. 24. Having taken note of the correct principles which need to be applied, we can safely conclude that the order of the High Court based solely on the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra was not correct. The High Court could not have set aside the order merely on the ground that service record pertaining to the period 1978-90 being old and stale could not be taken into consideration at all. As per the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that entire service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the government servant needs to be eased out prematurely. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. What is to be examined is the “overall performance” on the basis of “entire service record” to come to the conclusion as to whether the concerned employee has become a deadwood and it is public interest to retire him compulsorily. The Authority must consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the Authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee “rendered himself a liability to the institution”, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review.” 23. So far as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the State is concerned, in both the judgments i.e. AIR 1996 SC 2030 , Allahabad Bank Officers Association & Anr. Vs. Allahabad Bank & Ors. and AIR 1992 SC 1020 , Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr. there is no dispute so far as the ratio that has been laid down by the Supreme Court in these cases are concerned. Vs. Allahabad Bank & Ors. and AIR 1992 SC 1020 , Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr. there is no dispute so far as the ratio that has been laid down by the Supreme Court in these cases are concerned. Once if the allegation of the employee/officer is that the order of compulsory retirement is one which has been passed without any basis or has been passed arbitrarily without proper appreciation of service records of the employee/officer and also the ground of challenge being there is no evidence or basis for the State to reach to the said conclusion, it is always open for this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India exercising its power of judicial review to scrutinize and decide the veracity and legality of the order of compulsory retirement imposed upon the employee/officer.” 10. Again in the matter of G. C. Nahata (supra), this Court held in paras 18, 19, 21 & 25 as under:- “18. So far as law in respect of compulsory retirement is concerned, the Supreme Court as early as in 1998 (7) SCC 310 in case of M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India & Ors. in paragraph 13 held as under : “13. While viewing this case from the next angle for judicial scrutiny i.e. want of evidence or material to reach such a conclusion, we may add that want of any material is almost equivalent to the next situation that from the available materials no reasonable man would reach such a conclusion. While evaluating the materials the authority should not altogether ignore the reputation in which the officer was held till recently. The maxim "Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus" (no one becomes dishonest all on a sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is a salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of Administrative Law. The authorities should not keep the eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of "doubtful integrity" it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. To dunk an officer into the puddle of "doubtful integrity" it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer with the label "doubtful integrity". 19. The Supreme Court in the case of National Aviation Company of India Limited Vs. S. M. K. Khan reported in 2009 (5) SCC 732 , in paragraphs-13 to 16 has held as under:- “13. An order of compulsory retirement in pursuance of a rule/regulation which enables the competent authority to prematurely retire an employee, on the formation of a bona fide opinion that continuation of the employee in service will not benefit the institution or be in the interest of the institution (or will not be in public interest where the employee is a government servant), on review of the performance/service record of the employee, on the employee attaining the specified age or completing the specified period of service, is valid and not open to challenge. It is neither a punishment nor considered to be stigmatic. Where the compulsory retirement, is not by way of punishment for a misconduct, but is an action taken in pursuance of a valid condition of service enabling the employer to prepone the retirement, the action need not be preceded by any enquiry and the principles of natural justice have no application. 14. The unsatisfactory service of the employee which may include any persistent misconduct or inefficiency furnishes the background for taking a decision that the employee has become a dead wood and that he should be retired compulsorily. Such `compulsory retirement' is different and distinct from imposition of a punishment of compulsory retirement (or dismissal/removal) on a specific charge of misconduct, where the misconduct is the basis for the punishment. The difference is on account of two factors : Firstly, the employee on account of completing a particular age or number of years of service falls within the zone where his performance calls for assessment as to whether he is of continued utility to the employer or has become a deadwood or liability for the employer. The difference is on account of two factors : Firstly, the employee on account of completing a particular age or number of years of service falls within the zone where his performance calls for assessment as to whether he is of continued utility to the employer or has become a deadwood or liability for the employer. Secondly, the record of service, which may include poor performance, unsatisfactory service or incidentally any recent conduct (which if separately considered may constitute a misconduct subject to punishment) when considered as a whole, leads the Reviewing Authority to the conclusion that the employee in question is not fit to be continued in service and not of utility to the employer. Therefore, any incidental reference to unsatisfactory service, or any remarks in the context of explaining the reason for compulsory retirement under the relevant rule, in the letter of compulsory retirement will not be considered as stigmatic, even though read out of context, they may be capable of being construed as allegations of misconduct. 15. Any order of compulsory retirement in terms of the rule/regulation providing for such compulsory retirement is not open to interference unless shown to be malafide or arbitrary or not based on any background material at all relating unsatisfactory service justifying the premature retirement. 16. When an order of compulsory retirement purports to be one under the rule/regulation providing for such premature retirement, the proper approach of the court would be to consider whether the order is sustainable with reference to the requirements of the relevant rule, rather than examining whether the order could also be construed as a punishment for misconduct -- vide Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer [ 1992 (2) SCC 299 ], Allahabad Bank Officers' Association v. Allahabad Bank [ 1996 (4) SCC 504 ], I.K.Mishra v. Union of India [ 1997 (6) SCC 228 ], State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalsa Ram [ 2001 (3) SCC 389 ] and M. L. Binjolkar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 2005 (6) SCC 224 ].” 21. The Supreme Court in case of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation & Anr. Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar & Ors. 2009(15)SCC 221, referring to all the previous decisions on the issue in paragraph 35 has summarized or laid down the situations under which the order of compulsory retirement could be interfered with, held as under : “35. The Supreme Court in case of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation & Anr. Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar & Ors. 2009(15)SCC 221, referring to all the previous decisions on the issue in paragraph 35 has summarized or laid down the situations under which the order of compulsory retirement could be interfered with, held as under : “35. The law relating to compulsory retirement in public interest is no long res integra. The provisions had been made principally for weeding out dead wood. An order of compulsory retirement being not penal in nature can be subjected to judicial review inter alia : i. when it is based on no material; ii. when it is arbitrary ; iii. when it is without application of mind; and iv. when there is no evidence in support of the case.” 38. In Pritam Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [ (2005) 9 SCC 748 ], this Court held: 13. In our opinion, the High Court has committed an error in not interfering with the punishment of compulsory retirement even though the appellant submitted that the misconduct alleged against him was not at all an offence or even a serious mistake. The act of misconduct alleged against him was that he supplied a list of absentee details to one of the employees, who was fighting a case before the Tribunal against the Railways. This list contained the ticket numbers of the workers of a shop, who were absent on that date. This was neither a confidential document nor a privileged document. It contained details to which the employee concerned had a right of information. The appellant being a Superintendent Grade II and in charge of the information acted bona fide in good faith while supplying the information. In our opinion, this kind of an act was neither a misconduct nor a serious mistake. When the charges were found proved against the appellant, the appellant admitted that he had supplied the absentee details. 25. Based on the aforesaid legal principles and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the catena of judgments what calls out broadly is that while passing an order of compulsory retirement, there has to be overall assessment of the entire service record of the petitioner/employee which should be taken note of by the Department. 25. Based on the aforesaid legal principles and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the catena of judgments what calls out broadly is that while passing an order of compulsory retirement, there has to be overall assessment of the entire service record of the petitioner/employee which should be taken note of by the Department. One stray incident cannot be a deciding factor for placing an employee/officer under compulsory retirement, the same cannot by itself lead to an inference to be drawn by the Department to hold that the honesty and integrity of the petitioner is doubtful. Thus, the assessment made by the department cannot be said to be proper, legal and justified and the same also cannot be said that there was subjective satisfaction of the authorities before formation of an opinion for placing the petitioner under compulsory retirement. The impugned order dated 24.08.2017, therefore, in the opinion of this Court is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed.” 11. In light of the above, it is clear that the Scrutiny Committee found that the petitioner was habitual of taking leave on several occasions and has also filed the present writ petition before this Court against his transfer and departmental enquiry initiated against him and also for the reason that before joining the respondent corporation, the petitioner was working in the Security Press Nasik and got voluntarily retired and is being getting pension from the said Department but this fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner. It is clear from the documents that his leave was sanctioned by the Competent Authority and filing writ petition before this Court is not a ground for compulsory retirement. The Committee also observed that his ACRS from 2010-11 to 2014-15 was very good, for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17, the ACR was not received. Thus it is clear that recommendation of compulsory retirement is without any ground and the order passed by the Competent Authority is arbitrary and without proper appreciation of service records of the petitioner. The Committee also observed that his ACRS from 2010-11 to 2014-15 was very good, for the year 2015-16 and 2016-17, the ACR was not received. Thus it is clear that recommendation of compulsory retirement is without any ground and the order passed by the Competent Authority is arbitrary and without proper appreciation of service records of the petitioner. The assessment made by the Department cannot be said to be proper, legal and justified and same also cannot be said that there was subjective satisfaction of the authority before formation of opinion for placing the petitioner under compulsory retirement, therefore, the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 (Annexure-P/1) in the opinion of this Court is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The petitioner is reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 12. The writ petition stands allowed.