same would be sufficient in normal course to reach to the decision as taken by the respondents and this Court can always look into the facts and examine the legality of the orders. The petitioner has challenged his compulsory retirement order before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has failed to take notice of the averments mentioned therein and has after mentioning the general law relating to compulsory retirement proceeded to reject the appeal. Such a course adopted by the Tribunal cannot be said to be legal and proper, the Tribunal has failed to perform its duty as did not discuss the facts of the case, more so when in another similar case the Tribunal has proceeded to allow the appeals, the only adversity as noticed by this Court is with regard to an adverse entry in the ACR of the year 1991 for which he was also under suspension and recovery order was also issued. The recovery order was quashed by the Court as noticed above. The petitioner has also raised allegations and alleged bias on his superior officers against whom he has made complaints regarding preparing of fake bills. He has stated that he impleaded the concerned person as party to the writ petition but no reply has come forward. He also impleaded them as party before the Tribunal, the allegations of para 5 thus remained un-rebutted. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is satisfied that the order of compulsory retirement has been ruse for depriving the petitioner from regular duty. Although compulsory retirement does not cause any stigma, as held by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that on the said basis the order of compulsory retirement cannot be allowed to stand and the same is liable to be set-aside. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The compulsory retirement order dated 21.07.2000 is accordingly quashed and
