I.S Tiwana, J.:— This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India deserves to succeed for the short reason that the impugned order dated November 5, 1979 (Annexure P. 4) of retirement of the petitioner is, on the face of it, a penal order which has been passed without holding any regular enquiry, etc. against the petitioner. This is how the relevant part of the order reads:—
“And-whereas on consideration of your record of service undersigned is of the opinion that it is in public interest not to grant you extension in service beyond the age of 55 years as your honesty was doubted in the year 72-73.”
2. It is the undisputed case of the parties that no show-cause notice was issued or enquiry of any sort was held against the petitioner.
3. Though Mr. Sayal, learned counsel for the respondents points out that since the passing of this order, the words “as your honesty was doubted, in the year 72-73” have been substituted vide order dated, April 23, 1980, of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, yet this device adopted by the respondents, to my mind, does not remove the stigma that has been attached to the petitioner, by the impugned order.
4. In-the light of the discussion above, I allow this petition and quash the order Annexure P. 4. However, it do not debar the authorities from passing proper and legal order in accordance with law. I pass no order as to costs.
5. Petition allowed.