JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “(A) A writ of Mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to (i) quash and set aside impugned orders dated 08.05.2015 as well as 14.07.2016 passed in order-in-appeal and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, consequential benefits as if Order dated 08.05.2015 is not passed; (ii) to direct respondent No.2 to hold detail inquiry into the representations made by the petitioner with regard to the illegalities and irregularities committed in Gujarat Housing Board and to take stern and prompt action against the concerned personnel in the said irregularities; (iii) to direct respondent No.2 to take immediate and stern action against respondent Nos.4 to 9 for passing absolute illegal and unjustified order of premature retirement purely out of victimization and in mala fide manner; (B) … (C) …” 2. If we peruse the record, it appears that the petitioner joined the services of the Board in 1990 as an Assistant Engineer. On 11.03.2015, he was served with the notice asking as to why he has made direct representation to chairman and board members on 21.02.2015. The petitioner filed his detailed reply. But, on the very day on which the Review Committee's proceedings came to be received by the Board, order of premature retirement came to be passed. The Review Committee has considered that there is lack of integrity on the part of the petitioner. On 08.05.2015 order of premature retirement came to be issued. He filed an appeal before the Board on 15.06.2015. However, the same was not decided by the Board and therefore, petitioner preferred a petition being Special Civil Application No.19914 of 2015 and vide order dated 11.01.2016, this Court has directed the respondent No.1 to hear and decide the appeal within six months. As such, board confirmed the order of premature retirement vide its order dated 12.08.2016. It also appears that since the petitioner has been prematurely retired, pension is given to him at fix rate and no regular pension has been given to the petitioner. The impugned order of compulsory retirement is made the subject matter of challenge in this petition. Xxxx 4. Learned advocate Mr. It also appears that since the petitioner has been prematurely retired, pension is given to him at fix rate and no regular pension has been given to the petitioner. The impugned order of compulsory retirement is made the subject matter of challenge in this petition. Xxxx 4. Learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is erroneous and illegal. He submits that the order of compulsory retirement came to be passed as a shortcut to avoid the departmental inquiry. He further pointed out that order of premature retirement has been passed without considering Confidential Reports of the petitioner, since they are not not available and non – availability of Confidential Reports is not the fault of the petitioner and it cannot be made ground for premature retirement. He submits that when the petitioner has drawn the attention of the board to the irregularities and illegalities going on in the department, such action has been taken against the petitioner. He pointed out that his client would have otherwise retired in the year 2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. In such circumstances referred to above, he prays to allow the petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. 4.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner is relying upon the following decisions; (1) Oral Judgment dated 08.09.2016 in Special Civil Application No.9045 of 2002 between D. M. Patel and Housing Commissioner and Oral Judgment dated 22.12.2021 in Letters Patent Appeal No.276 of 2017 against such order. (2) Oral Order dated 13.10.2016 in Letters Patent Appeal No.918 of 2016 between Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. vs. Jayendra Chimanlal Shah. (3) Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India reported in 2023 JX (SC) 199 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Y. N. Ravani for the respondent submits that respondent is entitled to give compulsory retirement to its employee after reviewing their performance and service and when it is found that the officer concerned is a dead wood in the service of the government. Learned advocate Mr.Ravani also submits that it is absolutely an administrative act and that too after clear satisfaction on the part of the Commissioner to give compulsory retirement to the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Ravani also submits that it is absolutely an administrative act and that too after clear satisfaction on the part of the Commissioner to give compulsory retirement to the petitioner. It is also submitted that compulsory retirement is not a punishment or stigma but it is an absolute power of the employer to compulsory retire in the larger public interest and that it is an unanimous decision of the members of the committee. It is also submitted that petitioner has been given his retirement benefits like gratuity, commuted pension, leave encashment and petitioner is also getting pension at the rate of Rs.15,180/-. Lastly, it is prayed that this Court may not interfere with the impugned order of giving compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 5.1 Learned advocate for the respondent relies upon the following decisions; (1) Nisha Priya Bhatia vs. Union of India reported in AIR Online 2020 SC 484 (2) Mahesh Chandulal Vora vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2016 (4) GLR 3148 (3) Pradeep Girdharlal Soni vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2013 (O) AIJEL HC 230033 (4) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Babu Lal Jangir reported in (2013) 10 SCC 551 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the record. The only question that falls for this Court’s consideration is that whether the respondent authority committed any error in passing the impugned order. 6.1 If we peruse the decision in case of D. M. Patel (supra), in similar factual position, wherein also petitioner was an employee of the Gujarat Housing Board and order of compulsory retirement was passed against him, this Court allowed the petition and the order of compulsory retirement was quashed and all consequential benefits were given to him. Such order was challenged by the employee – Gujarat Housing Board in Letters Patent Appeal No.276 of 2017, wherein the division bench of this Court dismissed the same by observing as under: “6.2 The respondent employee who is retired compulsorily, did not have any adverse entry in his service record. His service reports were clean as seen above. He is sought to be retired on the ground of public interest. The past attendant performances of the employee could not have been judged except on the basis of confidential reports. His service reports were clean as seen above. He is sought to be retired on the ground of public interest. The past attendant performances of the employee could not have been judged except on the basis of confidential reports. When a government employee is retired compulsorily during the time he has been facing departmental inquiry and in the wake when he has to to face allegations of misconduct, retiring him compulsorily, notwithstanding the factum that his past record is clean would lead to inescapable inference that the basis of his compulsory retirement is for the allegations of misconduct. In such circumstances where the employee has the clean past record in terms of confidential reports and is retired during the pendency of the departmental inquiry, it is to be concluded that the order of compulsory retirement is acted upon as a shortcut to avoid the departmental inquiry. 6.3 Absence of adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner facing charge-sheet, would render the order of compulsory retirement punitive and the exercise leading to passing of order to be vitiated. The single set of allegation for which the departmental inquiry is held but not concluded or isolated incident of criminal case against the government employee, could not have been the basis for taking action of compulsory retirement when the past record of the employee is clean, on the ground that the employer wanted to weed out the dead wood.” 6.2 In case of State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel reported in 2001 (3) SCC 314 the concept of compulsory retirement in public interest is concerned, it is explained in detail by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The relevant paragraphs are as under; “11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus; (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) 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. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) 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. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.” 6.3 The another decision of the division bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.918 of 2016 is also relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner, wherein also in similar set of facts, the division bench confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge quashing an order of the compulsory retirement. 6.4 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Captain Pramod Kumar (supra) observed as under by quashing an order of compulsory retirement of the appellant – employee; “37. Having regard to the fact that the respondents did not take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant to its logical conclusion and instead issued an order compulsorily retiring him, this Court does not deem it expedient to delve into the allegations levelled in the said Charge Memorandum; all the same, we have cursorily gone through the Charge Memorandum that mentions three charges – one alleging that the appellant failed to seek permission from the department to purchase a flat in relation to the matrimonial dispute between him and his estranged wife and the second one is in respect of the allegation of bigamy levelled against him by his estranged wife. We have already noted earlier that during the course of the matrimonial dispute, the parties had arrived at a settlement and the flat that was agreed to be given to the wife, was not purchased by the appellant but by his brother, which fact is amply borne out from the documents placed on record. We have already noted earlier that during the course of the matrimonial dispute, the parties had arrived at a settlement and the flat that was agreed to be given to the wife, was not purchased by the appellant but by his brother, which fact is amply borne out from the documents placed on record. The matrimonial dispute between the parties stood closed on a decree of divorce being granted on the basis of mutual consent. That the respondents were also cognizant of the said fact, is apparent from the contents of O.M. dated 15th July, 2015 which records inter alia that the said allegations levelled by the wife had not been established. The third charge was relating to the appellant having attended Court hearings without sanctioned leave. However, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant on 17th July, 2019 were abandoned by the respondents on the order of compulsory retirement being passed against him in less than three months reckoned therefrom, on 27th September, 2019. 38. The appellant has made allegations of institutional bias and malice against the respondents on the plea that the Chairman, CBDT who was a Member of the Review Committee, was facing three contempt proceedings relating to the appellant’s service dispute, wherein notices had been issued by the High Court as well as the Tribunal. There is no doubt that rule of law is the very foundation of a well-governed society and the presence of bias or malafides in the system of governance would strike at the very foundation of the values of a regulated social order. The law relating to mala fide exercise of power has been the subject matter of a catena of decisions [Refer: S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab; Jaichand Lal Sethia v. State of W.B.; J.D. Srivastava v. State of M.P And Others and Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. And Others v. Union of India And Others]. It has been repeatedly held that any exercise of power that exceeds the parameters prescribed by law or is motivated on account of extraneous or irrelevant factors or is driven by malicious intent or is on the face of it, so patently arbitrary that it cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, must be struck down. It has been repeatedly held that any exercise of power that exceeds the parameters prescribed by law or is motivated on account of extraneous or irrelevant factors or is driven by malicious intent or is on the face of it, so patently arbitrary that it cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, must be struck down. In the instant case, though the appellant has levelled allegations of institutional bias and prejudice against the respondents, particularly against the then Chairman, CBDT who was a Member of the Review Committee, the said officer was not joined by the appellant as a party before the Tribunal or the High Court, for him to have had an opportunity to clarify his stand by filing a counter affidavit. Hence, these allegations cannot be looked into by this Court. 39. Dehors the aforesaid allegations of institutional bias and malice, having perused the material placed on record, we find merit in the other grounds taken by the appellant. It is noticed that though FR 56(j) contemplates that the respondents have an absolute right to retire a government servant in public interest and such an order could have been passed against the appellant any time after he had attained the age of fifty years, the respondents did not take any such decision till the very fag end of his career. The impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed in this case on 27th September, 2019 whereas the appellant was to superannuate in ordinary course in January, 2020. There appears an apparent contradiction in the approach of the respondents who had till as late as in July, 2019 continued to grade the appellant as ‘Outstanding’ and had assessed his integrity as ‘Beyond doubt’. But in less than three months reckoned therefrom, the respondents had turned turtle to arrive at the conclusion that he deserved to be compulsorily retired. If the appellant was worthy of being continued in service for little short of a decade after he had attained the age of 50 years and of being granted an overall grade of 9 on the scale of 1 - 10 on 31st July, 2019 it has not been shown as to what had transpired thereafter that made the respondents resort to FR 56(j) and invoke the public interest doctrine to compulsorily retire him with just three months of service left for his retirement, in routine. In such a case, this Court is inclined to pierce the smoke screen and on doing so, we are of the firm view that the order of compulsory retirement in the given facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained. The said order is punitive in nature and was passed to short-circuit the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant and ensure his immediate removal. The impugned order passed by the respondents does not pass muster as it fails to satisfy the underlying test of serving the interest of the public.” 7. At the same time, if we peruse the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondent, it becomes clear that in all such decisions, an order of compulsory retirement has been passed because of an adverse entry in the confidential reports of the employee or there is departmental inquiry/proceedings against an employee, whereas in the case on hand there was no departmental inquiry or proceedings against the present petitioner. A notice has been issued and the petitioner has filed detailed reply. Thereafter, directly an order of compulsory retirement has been passed. Moreover, confidential reports of last few years were not filled up by the concerned officer and therefore, there is no question of any adverse entry or adverse remark in the confidential report, which may lead the respondent authority to pass an order of compulsory retirement. 8. Considering the fact of this case from the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent in this case, which is at page 176 of the record, nothing has been brought on record regarding any adverse entry made against the present petitioner in his service record till the order of compulsory retirement was passed. It is also on record that the petitioner was a whistle blower who has tried to bring out some irregularities and illegalities committed by the board by way of detail application. It is also on record that the petitioner had contested elections of the board and he was office bearer of Gujarat Housing Board Engineers Association. It is also on record that the petitioner was a whistle blower who has tried to bring out some irregularities and illegalities committed by the board by way of detail application. It is also on record that the petitioner had contested elections of the board and he was office bearer of Gujarat Housing Board Engineers Association. He has also been leader in the department challenging the action of the respondent regarding an appointment of fresher on the post of promotional quota and this aspect regarding the petitioners application as well as filing the petitions challenging the recruitment of direct person on the promotional post, has not been dealt with by the respondent board in their affidavit but without giving opportunity of being heard by way of any kind of notice or without communicating any adverse entry in the service record of the petitioner, action of the compulsory retirement in the name of public interest has been passed. Not a single allegation against the petitioner is brought on record by the board regarding conduct of the petitioner, which rendered him unfit for the job. No confidential reports showing any adverse entry are brought on record nor the any confidential reports which being conveyed to the petitioner. In that event, based upon the principle of law laiddown by the catena of judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court it cannot be denied that the action on the part of the respondent board was a shortcut to avoid departmental proceedings against the present petitioner. It would have been a case of the department that person who has been working with the board, if the conduct of such person is not proper, an immediate action by way of initiating departmental proceedings could be taken by the department but instead of resorting to the legal procedures which are there under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, an order of compulsory retirement has been passed. Such action on the part of the board is declared tobe arbitrary which cannot be sustained. 9. In view of facts of the present case and keeping in mind the above position of law, it is clear that the impugned order appears to be passed as a shortcut to avoid the departmental inquiry. Such action on the part of the board is declared tobe arbitrary which cannot be sustained. 9. In view of facts of the present case and keeping in mind the above position of law, it is clear that the impugned order appears to be passed as a shortcut to avoid the departmental inquiry. An allegation is made of lack of integrity, then a departmental inquiry was required to be initiated and completed in accordance with law and Rules. Whereas, without following any such process, an order of compulsory retirement was passed. Moreover, at the time of passing an order of compulsory retirement, or reviewing the same or at least at the time of appeal, the respondent authority should take into consideration the fact that there were no confidential reports of last few years and that the previous confidential reports are absolutely clean. 10. Therefore, taking into consideration view taken by the division bench of this Court in case of D. M. Patel (supra), the petition is hereby partly allowed. The impugned order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the respondent as well as order dated 14.07.2016 passed by the appellate authority are quashed and set aside. The respondent is hereby directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of writ of this order. Rule is made absolute to that extent.