ORDER A.M. Ahamadi, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted.
3. Heard counsel on both sides.
4. The impugned order of the High Court cannot be allowed to stand. The High Court has come to the conclusion that the order of compulsory retirement is in the nature of punishment. That conclusion is based on the fact that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it was mentioned that the incumbent was involved in irregularities in 1977 resulting in financial loss to the Government. In regard to that incident, a departmental enquiry was held against the incumbent and punishment was imposed. The High Court, therefore, states that since the order of compulsory retirement is based on that very incident, it is in the nature of punishment. In support, the High Court has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Ram Ekbal Sharma v. State of Bihar 1990-11-LLJ-601. We are of the opinion that this decision has no application. In that case the services of the employee came to be terminated by way of compulsory retirement on the ground that there was a report of grave misconduct against him. No departmental enquiry was held into that allegation of misconduct nor was the charge found proved and punishment meted out for it. That is not the case here. In the present case, a departmental enquiry was made, the charge was proved and he was punished. This entry in his confidential report was the basis for taking the view that he needs to be compulsorily retired in public interest. If the record of the incumbent is not up to the mark and if it betrays lack of integrity etc., it is open to the State to compulsorily retire such an employee. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was wrong in the view it took.
5. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the order of compulsory retirement passed against the respondent is revived. There will be no order as to costs.