The main legal point established is that while the authority has the power to compulsorily retire an employee, the retirement order must be based on valid reasons and not stigmatic in nature. Additionally, the authority is obligated to pay retirement benefits, especially in the context of acquittal.

Sonia Gokani, J.

1. This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondent authority of compulsorily retiring the petitioner from the service.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner is B.E. (Electrical) having birth date 14.5.1940, who joined as Deputy Engineer (Trainee) in the respondent Board. He was promoted as Executive Engineer on 30.10.1981, and was working since then.

3. A complaint was filed by one Harji Raghavji Patel on 14.3.1988 accusing him of the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, of receiving illegal gratification in connection with providing electric connection. Initially, he was arrested and released on bail, but later on, he was charge sheeted.

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension on account of criminal case lodged against him by an order dated 25.3.1988. The respondent Board did not contemplate any separate departmental proceedings against the petitioner, and he continued to be under suspension.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he was served with the impugned order dated 10.5.1995 of compulsorily retiring him with effect from 13.5.1995 on his completion of 55 years of age on the ground that the authority has reasonable cause to believe that the petitioner is lacking in integrity. He was paid three months notice pay. Such order was passed under the provision of General Standing Order (G.S.O.) No. 218 dated 26.4.1972 read with Service Regulation No. 72 of the Board. The petitioner in this petition has challenged this order of compulsory retirement.

6. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner came to be acquitted by the Sessions Court in Criminal Case No. 3 of 1996 vide judgment and order dated 13.4.1999. Criminal Appeal was also preferred by the State, being Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 1999, which was dismissed in limine on 21.9.1999.

7. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his acquittal though is not on technical ground but on merit, the order of compulsory retirement even otherwise would not survive. He has already attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.1998, therefore, he would naturally not make any prayer for reinstatement, but instead has asked for the financial benefits, as if such order was never in existence, with all promotional benefits, and as would have been made available to him, had such order not been passed. Therefore, this petition with the following prayers:

"(A) declaring the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 10.5.95 as irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of the principles of natural justice and by way of abuse of power and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the service regulations of the Board and, therefore, illegal, null and void and quashing the same;

(B) directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to his original post with continuity in service and with benefits of backwages and other allowances;

(C) restraining the respondents from taking any action on the basis of the impugned order dated 10.5.95 and from enforcing the said order;

(CC) may be paid with 18% interest.

(D) directing the respondents to stay the operation of the order dated 10.5.95 and to allow the petitioner to be under suspension as before with all benefits from suspension; and

(E) making any other appropriate order."

8. In the first affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Board, it is contended that the order of compulsory retirement is not punitive. It is the prerogative of the respondent Board to review the situation even at the age of 50 years, as the petitioner has already crossed 50 years of age. It is the further say of the respondent authority that it is not the Board which has lodged any complaint against the petitioner, but it is a third party, and on realizing from the news item published in the daily newspaper, the action of suspensi