Partha Sarthy, J.—Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.5.2022 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow CWJC no.23655 of 2018 filed by the writ petitioner-respondent no.1.

3. The case of the writ petitioner in brief is that he was working as a daily wage employee in the Governor’s Secretariat, Bihar at Patna when on 27.11.1991, he was made a Class-III employee. His service was regularised as Lower Division Clerk on 3.1.2008 and he was working in the said capacity in the Governor’s Secretariat when by the order impugned dated 2.7.2018, purportedly passed under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code, the writ petitioner was compulsorily retired from service.

4. Challenging the said order in CWJC no.23655 of 2018, the writ application having been allowed, the instant appeal has been preferred by the writ respondent nos. 2 and 3.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ respondentsappellants submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code compulsorily retiring the writ petitioner and the learned Single Judge has erred in interfering with the same. It is submitted that perusal of the said order would show that the same had been passed against the writ petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk, on the ground that it was not in public or administrative interest that he be continued in service. As such, the writ petitioner who was appointed on 3.1.2008, was aged more than 50 years, was compulsorily retired under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the case Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Ors. vs. Babu Lal Jangir [2014 (1) PLJR 394 (SC)] to submit that the order of compulsory retirement being neither punitive nor stigmatic, the scope of judicial review is very limited.

6. In response, it is submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent no.1 that while working as a Class-III employee in the Governor’s Secretariat, the writ petitioner was served with a letter dated 8.9.2017 levelling allegations against him and asking him to furnish his explanation with respect to the same. The writ petitioner submitted his reply on 18.9.2017. The writ respondents decided to proceed against him departmentally and memo of charges was served on him on 28.3.2018. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply which he did on 8.5.2018. The next date fixed by the Enquiry Officer was 24.5.2018 followed by 28.5.2018. It is submitted that all of a sudden, the impugned order dated 2.7.2018 was passed compulsorily retiring him from service of the Governor’s Secretariat. It is submitted that in the order impugned imputations have been levelled against him. Further, a departmental proceeding had been initiated and the writ respondents have illegally taken recourse to the provisions of Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code to compulsorily retire him. Learned Counsel submits that the order impugned in the writ application being unsustainable, the learned Single Judge rightly interfered with the same and there being no merit in the appeal filed, the same be dismissed.

7. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record including the records of the writ application.

8. The relevant facts in brief are that the writ petitioner while working in the capacity of a Lower Division Clerk in the Governor’s Secretariat, Bihar at Patna was served with a letter dated 8.9.2017 making allegations against him of negligence in duty, not complying with the directions of the higher authorities etc. He was asked to reply within one week as to why a disciplinary proceeding be not initiated. He submitted his reply on 18.9.2017 denying the allegations. He was thereafter served with a charge-sheet along with an office order contained in memo dated 28.3.2018. The order stated that