1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner respondent has been compulsorily retired from the service. Against that, he filed the writ petition.

3. As no charge has been proved and no material has been placed on record to support he case of compulsorily retirement, therefore, the petition was allowed.

4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant failed to show any material which is sufficient to retire the petitioner-respondent compulsorily.The relevant conclusion of the learned Single Judge reads as under:

"In the present case, the petitioner was promoted and within a short period of his promotion he has been pre-maturely retired. Even otherwise nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any complaint against the said person or he was departmentally proceeded with or was punished or as to how he was ineffective in service and as to why he could not be reverted back to his lower rank of Naik instead of pre-maturely retiring him and thus the guidelines as provided by the Union of India seems to have been violated."

5. In view of the aforesaid facts, no interference is called for.

6. The appeal stands dismissed at admission stage.Appeal dism