( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant who was working as Executive Engineer with M/s Haryana Vidyut Prasaran nigam Ltd. , the respondents herein, was compulsorily retired from service by order dated 17-12-1998. The order retiring the appellant compulsorily reads as under:"shri R. K. Panjetha, Executive Engineer attained the age of 50 years on 1-4-1997, his date of birth being 2-4-1947. His retention case beyond the age of 50 years was continued to be considered but could not be finalised due to pending disciplinary case (s) in terms of Rule 3. 26 (d) of csr, Vol. I, Part I read with Rule 5. 32-A (C) of CSR, Vol. II which provides as under: (a) efficiency in performance during the last 10 years, officers with 50% good record of service be retained; (b) integrity for the last 10 years of service should be good. In the meantime, Board of Directors of HVPNL in their meeting held on 10-9-1998 and circulated vide Memo No. Ch. 8/nec/g-1501 dated 25-9-1998 decided as under: the following items of misconduct/indiscipline on the part of an officer/official involves/constitutes the doubtful integrity of the officer/official concerned but, it has been observed that suitable remarks regarding doubtful integrity are not being given in ACRs by the concerned reporting officers/next higher authority: (i) delaying a case deliberately to give undue benefit to the consumer (s); (ii) delaying a case deliberately to harass the consumer with an aim to get personal/illegal gratification from the consumer concerned; (iii) deliberate misinterpretation of codal instructions/rules to give undue financial benefit to the consumer; (iv) acting in a manner prejudicial to the commercial/ financial interests of HVPNL/hpgcl and to the benefit of the consumer (s ). It has therefore been decided that punishment on account of (i) to (v) above may be taken care of while deciding the cases regarding retention in service beyond the age of 50/55 years. It has also been decided that in future the cases of retention in service beyond the age of 50 or 55 years, be put up to the Committee consisting of the following in respect of Engineers common cadre: (a) Director/finance; (b) Director (OP), Director (Transmission); (c) Chief Engineer/administration. The Committee so constituted perused the case record, charge- sheets/show-cause notices and punishment (s) to Shri R. K. Panjetha, executive Engineer, the details of which are as under: (i) Advised to exercise better supervision in future vide O/o no. 475/conf. 2740 dated 31-12-1997. In the case he failed to implement checking report on vigilance party and did not get charge of 5990 units average in the month of January 1990 due to which these charges were left out for months together till the replacement of meter. (ii) He was warned to be careful in future vide O/o No. 132/conf. 3426 dated 20-3-1998 in the case that the premises of faridabad Administration Complex (SED HUDA) A/c No. 14/ mt/424 was checked by ADV, Gurgaon on 27-5-1992 and it was found that the direct supply was being allowed to the consumer which was against the instructions of the Board. He has also failed to make any efforts to prevent the irregularities which allowed direct supply to the consumer during his tenure and made no efforts to arrange meter supply. (iii) He was awarded the punishment of warning with a copy in CR vide O/o No. 88/conf. l6-6/403/engg. dated 14-9-1990 to reason that he accepted the application of 18 consumers after the expiry of last date earmarked for regularisation of unauthorised extension in load under the voluntary disclosure scheme, i. e. , 30-6-1988 by accepting the additional security. Thus, he violated boards instructions with mala fide and ulterior motives. (iv) He was censured vide O/o No. 144/conf. 2096 dated 28- 10-1992 and to downgrade annual QR for the relevant period for diverting the funds indiscriminately against the instructions of the Board. (v) His services