( 1 ) ). THE petitioner herein has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement {annexure d to the petition) passed by the Competent Authority, under Rule 161 (1) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy before the Court, it is first necessary to examine certain relevant facts. 2. 1 the petitioner had joined the service of the respondent-Board and was, at an appropriate stage, appointed as Junior Engineer by an order passed by the respondent dated 11/08/1972. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 2 5/10/1982. Thereafter, he was further promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 18/07/1992, and was confirmed on the said post with effect from 1/04/1994. It requires to be noted that these facts are not in dispute. 2. 2 the petitioner was thereafter placed under suspension (pending inquiry) by an order dated 6th August 1998. Two sets of charges were levelled against the petitioner. One Charge Sheet dated 9/09/1997 was issued (Annexure a to the petition) and another Charge Sheet dated 10/11/1997 was issued against him (Annexure b to the petition ). The fact that there were two separate Charge Sheets issued to the petitioner is relevant in the context of the further discussion. 2. 3 the respondent thereafter issued an order dated 2 3/01/1998 (Annexure c to the petition) which appears to be a general order pertaining to various inquiries pertaining to various acts and affecting many delinquents, to the effect that on the date of the said order, the Inquiry Officer had not been appointed and that as and when an Inquiry officer will be appointed, the inquiries shall proceed. It appears that the petitioner was governed by the said order in view of the fact that the petitioners name is found in the annexure to the said order. What requires to be noted is that according to the petitioner, this order pertained to the inquiry arising from the first Charge Sheet at Annexure a, and that this inquiry has remained pending since the order at Annexure c was passed. In short, the inquiry which arose from the Charge Sheet at Annexure a has remained pending since then, or at the very least, has not been completed. There is no controversy on this fact. As against this, the Charge Sheet at Annexure b to the petition did proceed, and ultimately resulted in a report of the Inquiry Officer whereby the petitioner has been partly exonerated and partly found guilty in respect of the charges levelled against him under Annexure b. However, this fact, that is to say that he is partly exonerated and partly found guilty, is only communicated to the Court with reference to the report of the Inquiry Officer which is not on the record of the case, and when presented to the Court for perusal during the course of hearing, was found to be incomplete. These facts have been noted only in order to understand the inter-play of the various factual aspects while discussing the legal contentions discussed hereinafter. 2. 4 as aforesaid, the impugned order at Annexure d compulsorily retiring the petitioner has been passed under rule 161 (1) of the BCSR, and this fact is also not in dispute.

( 3 ) ONE of the principal contentions raised by the petitioner is that on a true and correct interpretation of the rule 161 of the BCSR, the petitioner could be compulsorily retired only on or after the date on which he attains the age of 55 years. On the facts of the case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired, precisely with effect from the date when he would have attained the age of 50 years. 3. 1 in the context of the controversy, the relevant provisions of Rule 161 of BCSR require to be examined. 3. 2 rule 161 (1) [so far as relevant for the purpose of the present discussion] reads as under:"161. (1) (A ). EXCEPT as otherwise provided in the other clauses of this rule, the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servan