JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. S. N. Tamuli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel submitted that he has been specifically instructed by Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned CGC to appear today in the instant matter. It is further relevant to take note of that this matter was heard by this Court on 26.11.2024, 16.12.2024 as well as on 09.01.2025 wherein Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned CGC was heard. 3. Today, the matter was only fixed taking into account that Mr. S. N. Tamuli, the counsel for the petitioner pursuant to the observations so made in the order dated 09.01.2025 sought to place before this Court certain judgments. 4. Mr. S. N. Tamuli, the learned counsel in that regard has placed the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed & Others. Vs. State of Kerala & Another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 . Taking into that the matter has been duly heard, this Court takes up the instant writ petition for final disposal. 5. The dispute involved in the instant petition pertains to a challenge being made to the order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the respondent No.5 whereby the petitioner had been imposed the penalty of “Compulsory Retirement from Service” w.e.f. 06.03.2007. Additionally, it was also mentioned that as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, vide Sub-Rule 40(1), the petitioner would be eligible to full compensation pension and retirement gratuity as admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement w.e.f. 06.03.2007. At the outset, it is relevant to observe that the impugned order dated 04.01.2017 is severable into two parts. One is the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement and the other is the effect given to the order of compulsory retirement from a date anterior to the imposition of penalty i.e. w.e.f. 06.03.2007. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before this Court on 26.11.2024 that the petitioner is not inclined to challenge the first part of the order of compulsory retirement from service dated 04.01.2017. However, the petitioner's challenge is limited to the second part of the impugned order i.e. imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement from service giving retrospective effect from 06.03.2007. However, the petitioner's challenge is limited to the second part of the impugned order i.e. imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement from service giving retrospective effect from 06.03.2007. This aspect when submitted before this Court on 26.11.2024, this Court permitted the petitioner to file a short affidavit in that regard. Accordingly, an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 10.12.2024. 7. For ascertaining as to whether the petitioner’s challenge to the order of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 06.03.2007 holds merit, this Court finds it relevant to deal with the facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition. 8. The materials on record show that the petitioner herein was inducted in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 24.09.1994 as a Constable/General Duty. While he was in service, penalty of “Dismissal From Service” was imposed upon the petitioner vide an order dated 15.10.1996 by the respondent No.5. The petitioner thereupon preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority which was rejected vide an order dated 04.08.1997. The petitioner challenged this order of dismissal from service by filing a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No.541/1998. The said writ petition was disposed of vide an order dated the 25.11.1999 whereby the order dated 15.10.1996 dismissing the petitioner from service and also the Appellate order dated 04.08.1997 whereby the petitioner's appeal was rejected were set aside and quashed and the respondents herein were directed to take back the petitioner forthwith in service. However, liberty was given to the respondents to decide the petitioner's entitlement to back wages and other service benefits in accordance with the Financial rules. 9. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated into service. The respondent No.4 herein thereupon initiated an inquiry against the petitioner on the charges as incorporated in the Memorandum of Charges dated 23.08.2001. Subsequent to the enquiry held, the petitioner was imposed the penalty of “removal from service” vide an order dated 06.03.2007 by the respondent No.5. This date is relevant taking into account that the impugned order dated 04.01.2017 whereby the petitioner was imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service relates back to this order dated 06.03.2007. 10. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2007 of imposition of penalty of removal from service challenged the same before this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.2208/2007. 10. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2007 of imposition of penalty of removal from service challenged the same before this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.2208/2007. The said petition was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide a judgment and order dated 03.09.2010. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an Intra Court Appeal before the learned Division Bench of this Court which was registered and numbered as Writ Appeal No.227/2011. The learned Division Bench of this Court vide a judgment and order dated 09.08.2011 disposed of the said Writ Appeal by observing that the harshness of the penalty of removal from service on the charges proved required to be looked into. On the basis thereof, the said Writ Appeal was disposed of thereby granting an opportunity to the petitioner herein to submit a detailed representation before the concerned Respondent Authority along with the certified copy of the order and if it was so done, the Deputy Inspector General of CRPF, Khatkhati, Kohima, Nagaland would take an appropriate decision on such representation. Paragraph 11 of the said order is reproduced herein under: “11. While making these observations, we are not unmindful that at all relevant times, the appellant had been a member of a disciplined Force and ought to had been exemplarily careful in his dealings. Be that as it may, in the background as narrated hererinabove, we consider it appropriate to close this appeal requiring the respondent authorities to reconsider the penalty of removal against the appellant. We hereby grant an opportunity to the appellant to submit a detailed representation before the concerned respondent authority along with a certified copy of this order and if it is so done, the Deputy Inspector General of CRPF, Khatkhati, Kohima, Nagaland (as we are told that he is the appropriate authority) would take an appropriate decision on such representation. We further require that the aforementioned authority before disposing of the representation, would grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.” 11. It is relevant to take note of that neither the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 03.09.2010 in WP(C) No.2208/2007 nor the learned Division Bench of this Court interfered with the order of removal from service dated 06.03.2007. It is relevant to take note of that neither the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 03.09.2010 in WP(C) No.2208/2007 nor the learned Division Bench of this Court interfered with the order of removal from service dated 06.03.2007. The learned Division Bench as would be seen from the above quoted paragraph only granted a liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation. 12. Interestingly, the Petitioner instead of submitting a representation as per the liberty so granted by the learned Division Bench of this Court filed an appeal against the order dated 06.03.2007 whereby the petitioner was removed from service on 09.09.2011 along with an application for condonation of delay. This aspect of the matter is apparent from paragraph No.3 of the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority condoned the delay but rejected the Appeal vide an order dated 17.11.2011 thereby affirming the order dated 06.03.2007 of removal of service of the petitioner. The effect of the order dated 17.11.2011 being an appellate order, the order dated 06.03.2007 merged with the order dated 17.11.2011. 13. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed another writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.1363/2012. It may not be out of place to mention herein that while the aforesaid litigations were going on, the petitioner had also challenged the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by filing another writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.7960/2005. Both the writ petitions i.e. WP(C) No.1363/2012 and WP(C) No.7960/2005 were disposed of vide a common judgment and order dated 08.02.2013 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is relevant to take note of that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment and order dated 08.02.2013 observed that the representation of the petitioner ought to have been considered by taking into account the directions of the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 09.08.2011 in Writ Appeal No.227/2011 and further observed that the petitioner was entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Accordingly, the said writ petition being WP(C) No.1363/2012 was allowed and the Respondent Authorities were directed to reconsider the penalty of removal imposed upon him in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition being WP(C) No.7960/2005 was closed as infructuous. Accordingly, the said writ petition being WP(C) No.1363/2012 was allowed and the Respondent Authorities were directed to reconsider the penalty of removal imposed upon him in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition being WP(C) No.7960/2005 was closed as infructuous. Paragraph No.7 of the said judgment and order dated 08.02.2013 being relevant is reproduced herein under: “7. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the penalty of removal imposed upon him in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that by reconsideration, the respondent authorities are not allowed to change the penalty to be imposed upon the Petitioner from removal to one of dismissal or termination from service but a penalty lesser than that of the penalty of removal or dismissal or termination from service. As the learned Central Government Counsel fervently has made a plea not to impose cost, I refrained from doing so even though this is case in which the order of this Court is being flouted with impunity. In the light of this judgment, the WP(C) No.7960/2005 has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed.” 14. It is relevant to take note of that in the above quoted paragraph, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court not only allowed the writ petition but further directed the Respondent Authorities to reconsider the penalty of removal imposed upon the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. In addition to that, there was also a direction that by reconsideration, the Respondent Authorities were not allowed to change the penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner from removal to one of dismissal or termination of service, but a penalty lesser than that of the penalty of removal or dismissal or termination from service. Therefore, it would be seen that the judgment and order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had two facets. First, interfering with the Appellate order of penalty dated 17.11.2011 and the second direction was issued to reconsider the penalty and opining as regards the nature of penalty to be imposed. Therefore, it would be seen that the judgment and order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had two facets. First, interfering with the Appellate order of penalty dated 17.11.2011 and the second direction was issued to reconsider the penalty and opining as regards the nature of penalty to be imposed. This aspect has relevance as would be seen from the later segments of the instant judgment. 15. Being aggrieved, the Respondents herein preferred an Intra Court Appeal before the learned Division Bench of this Court which was registered and numbered as WA No.196/2013. The learned Division Bench of this Court after hearing both the parties did not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court insofar as setting aside the Appellate order dated 17.11.2011 and directions issued requiring fresh order(s) to be passed after giving due consideration. However, the learned Division Bench opined that the second part of the judgment and order dated 08.02.2013 insofar as directions issued for reconsideration on the nature of penalty to be imposed was not proper and observed that fresh order of penalty has to be made as per law which would be subject to judicial review in case the same is found to be vitiated by illegality, impropriety or procedural irregularity. The relevant portion of the said judgment and order dated 02.08.2013 passed by the learned Division Bench is reproduced herein under: “We have duly considered the matter. While we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge to the extent of quashing the order dated 17.11.2011 and requiring fresh order being passed after giving due consideration to the observations, in earlier order of this Court quoted hereinabove, we find merit in the submission that reconsideration should not be preempted by any specific direction on the nature of penalty to be imposed. Fresh order of penalty has to be as per law and will be subject to judicial review in case the same is found to be vitiated by illegality, impropriety or procedural irregularity. The order of learned Single Judge will stand modified accordingly.” 16. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.5 who was the disciplinary authority passed an Order dated 12.10.2013 whereby the penalty of “removal from service” was again imposed upon the Petitioner and it was further mentioned that the order dated 06.03.2007 would remain. The order of learned Single Judge will stand modified accordingly.” 16. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No.5 who was the disciplinary authority passed an Order dated 12.10.2013 whereby the penalty of “removal from service” was again imposed upon the Petitioner and it was further mentioned that the order dated 06.03.2007 would remain. It is however pertinent to observe that post the judgment dated 02.08.2013 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in WA No.196/2013, there appears to be no order passed by the Appellate Authority. 17. Being aggrieved vide the order dated 12.10.2013, a contempt proceedings was initiated by the petitioner which was registered and numbered as Cont.Cas(C) No. 451/2014. This Court vide an order dated 21.11.2014 closed the said contempt proceedings holding inter alia that the order dated 12.10.2013 cannot be said to be a deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Court. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to assail the order dated 12.10.2013 on the grounds as may be available in law. 18. The petitioner thereupon challenged the order dated 12.10.2013 passed by the Respondent No.5 herein by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No. 4941/2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide an order dated 15.09.2016 by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court whereby directions were issued upon the respondents herein to comply with the order dated 09.11.2011 passed in WA No.227/2011 and the order dated 02.08.2013 passed in WA No.196/2013 by reconsidering the penalty of removal imposed upon the petitioner and a fresh order of penalty may be imposed as per law which shall however not include the penalty of removal. By the said order dated 15.09.2016, the order dated 12.10.2013 passed by the respondent No.5 herein was also set aside and quashed with a further direction that the entire exercise should be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy. 19. Subsequent thereto, the impugned order dated 04.01.2017 was passed whereby the petitioner was imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 06.03.2007 and further observing that the petitioner would be eligible to full compensation pension and retirement gratuity as admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement i.e. 06.03.2007. It is on the above facts, the present writ petition was filed. 20. This Court issued notice vide an order dated 13.03.2019. It is on the above facts, the present writ petition was filed. 20. This Court issued notice vide an order dated 13.03.2019. It is seen that pursuant thereto, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondents on 08.01.2020 supporting the order dated 04.01.2017 impugned in the instant proceedings. It was mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that that in view of the order dated 15.09.2016 passed in WP(C) No.4941/2015, the Disciplinary Authority had again examined the entire DE proceedings carefully and found that the petitioner had set a very bad example which is unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force. It was mentioned that the petitioner had committed an act of gross and serious misconduct/disobedience in the capacity as a member of the force under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. Therefore, in exercise of the statutory power vested upon the disciplinary authority under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rule, 1955, the penalty of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 06.03.2007 was passed vide the order dated 04.01.2017. 21. The petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition and reiterated his stand in the writ petition. It was mentioned that the respondent No.5 had imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner by giving retrospective effect from 06.03.2007. It was further mentioned that while imposing the aforesaid penalty, the respondent No.5 had again observed that the petitioner being a member of the disciplined force, had set a very bad example which is unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force without taking into consideration that this Court had already condoned the mistake on the part of the petitioner considering his educational qualifications, age and hence the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner. It was further mentioned that the penalty imposed cannot be given retrospective effect with effect from 06.03.2007 as the same had merged with the order dated 12.10.2013. 22. It is further seen that an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 10.12.2024 wherein it was stated that the penalty which have been imposed vide the impugned order dated 04.10.2017 is a reiteration of the order dated 06.03.2007 inasmuch as the gravity and implication of both the orders i.e. removal from service and compulsory retirement were the same. It is further seen that an additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 10.12.2024 wherein it was stated that the penalty which have been imposed vide the impugned order dated 04.10.2017 is a reiteration of the order dated 06.03.2007 inasmuch as the gravity and implication of both the orders i.e. removal from service and compulsory retirement were the same. The petitioner stated that if the petitioner is compulsorily retired w.e.f. 06.03.2007, the petitioner would not have the qualifying service required for pension. It was further mentioned that the petitioner was inducted in service on 24.09.1994 and he had completed 30 years of service on the 24.09.2024. Additionally, the petitioner further alleged that the petitioner could not join his services under the CRPF for the fault of the respondents. 23. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, let this Court take note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 24. Mr. S. N. Tamuli, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the order dated 06.03.2007, the petitioner though filed a writ petition which was dismissed but vide the order dated 09.08.2011 in Writ Appeal No.227/2011, the petitioner was given the liberty to submit a representation so that the Respondent Authorities could reconsider the penalty of removal imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon, instead of submission of a representation, submitted an appeal in terms with Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 along with an application for condonation of delay. He submitted that this very aspect would be seen from the order dated 17.11.2011 wherein at paragraph No.3, it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner had filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay and the delay was condoned. He further submitted that vide the order dated 17.11.2011, the respondent No.4 had dismissed the appeal. Under such circumstances, the order dated 06.03.2007 merged with the order dated 17.11.2011. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner thereupon challenged the said order dated 17.11.2011 in WP(C) No.1363/2012 and the said writ petition was allowed. The learned counsel therefore submitted that with the writ petition being allowed vide a judgment and order dated 08.02.2013 in WP(C) No.1363/2012, the penalty of removal from service imposed vide the order dated 17.11.2011 no longer existed. The learned counsel therefore submitted that with the writ petition being allowed vide a judgment and order dated 08.02.2013 in WP(C) No.1363/2012, the penalty of removal from service imposed vide the order dated 17.11.2011 no longer existed. This portion of the order was also not interfered with by the learned Division Bench in its order dated 02.08.2013 in Writ Appeal No.196/2013. However, liberty was given to the respondents to pass a fresh order of penalty as per law. Thereupon, another order was passed on 12.10.2013 whereby the petitioner was again imposed the punishment for removal from service. This order was challenged in WP(C) No.4941/2015 and this Court vide the order dated 15.09.2016 had set aside the said order thereby directing the Respondent Authorities to carry out a fresh exercise within a period of three months. He therefore submitted that it was only on 04.01.2017, an order of penalty was imposed and as such, the question of imposition of a penalty of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 06.03.2007 is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel submitted that the law in that regard is very clear that imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement or termination or removal of service cannot be given with a retrospective effect. In that regard, he referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and Another Vs. Ram Niwas Bansal (dead) through LRs reported in (2014) 12 SCC 106 . 25. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Roy and Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the order dated 06.03.2007 was never interfered with by the Court. He submitted that the orders which have been interfered with are all orders arising out of the liberty given to the petitioner to submit the representation and as such although in the order dated 17.11.2011, there is a reference that it is an appeal but in effect, it was the consideration of the representation as could be seen from a perusal of Paragraph No.3 wherein it has been mentioned that it was done so on the compliance of the order dated 09.08.2011 in Writ Appeal No.227/2011. He therefore submitted that as the petitioner's termination order dated 06.03.2007 still continues to hold the field and the petitioner was never reinstated vide any order, the compulsory retirement from service of the petitioner w.e.f. 06.03.2007 vide the impugned order dated 04.01.2017 does not call for any interference. He further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. A.G.D. Reddy reported in (2023) 14 SCC 391 wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the scope of interference of the Court and in that regard referred to paragraph Nos. 18, 45 and 46 of the said judgment. He also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Shobrati Khan and Others reported in AIR 1959 SC 923 wherein it was observed in the context of a proceedings before the Labour Court that the approval of the Labour Court to the dismissal of in service would relate back to the date on which the employer passed the order of dismissal. 26. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels for the parties and given anxious consideration to the materials on record. 27. It is seen from the order dated 09.08.2011 passed in Writ Appeal No.227/2011 that the learned Division Bench of this Court did not interfere with the order dated 06.03.2007 whereby penalty of dismissal of service was imposed. Be that as it may, the learned Division Bench was also of the opinion that the penalty was a bit harsh in the extenuating circumstances and as such, gave the liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation and the respondent No.4 herein was directed to consider the same. The petitioner herein rather than submitting his representation, filed an appeal in terms of Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (for short ‘Rules of 1955’). The Appellate Authority condoned the delay in view of the order dated 09.08.2011 passed in Writ Appeal No.227/2011, however dismissed the said Appeal vide the order dated 17.11.2011. 28. This Court had duly taken note of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1955 which provides a statutory appellate remedy against an order passed by the Commandant (the Respondent No.5 herein) to the Deputy Inspector General (the Respondent No.4 herein). 28. This Court had duly taken note of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1955 which provides a statutory appellate remedy against an order passed by the Commandant (the Respondent No.5 herein) to the Deputy Inspector General (the Respondent No.4 herein). Under such circumstances, what is the effect of the order dated 06.03.2007 after the Appellate Authority passed the order dated 17.11.2011 by confirming the order dated 06.03.2007. 29. The nature and concept of the doctrine of merger is no longer res- integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 had elaborately explained the doctrine of merger to be a concept founded in common law on principles of propriety in the hierarchy of justice delivery system. The Supreme Court had after copious details of the various judgments summed up its conclusion at paragraph No.44 of the said judgment. Paragraph No.44(i) is relevant for the purpose of the instant case and as such, the said paragraph No.44(i) is reproduced herein below: “ 44.(i) . Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law.” 30. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court takes note of Rule 27 and 28 of the Rules of 1955, it would be seen that the punishment of “Dismissal or Removal from the Force” in respect to the Constables and enrolled followers can be imposed by the Commandant after a formal departmental enquiry. Against an order of punishment, imposed by the Commandant, Appeal under Rule 28 lies to the Deputy Inspector General. 31. The materials on record show that the order dated 06.03.2007 by which punishment of removal from service was imposed by the Respondent No.5 was carried on appeal before the Respondent No.4. The order dated 17.11.2011 clearly shows that the delay in filing the Appeal was condoned by the Respondent No.4 but for reasons assigned therein, the Appeal was dismissed by affirming the order dated 06.03.2007. The order dated 17.11.2011 clearly shows that the delay in filing the Appeal was condoned by the Respondent No.4 but for reasons assigned therein, the Appeal was dismissed by affirming the order dated 06.03.2007. Consequently, as the order dated 06.03.2007 was affirmed by the Appellate order dated 17.11.2011, the order dated 06.03.2007 merged with the Appellate order dated 17.11.2011 and consequently the Appellate order dated 17.11.2011 would only subsist, remain operative and would be capable of enforcement in the eye of law. 32. In the above backdrop, let this Court deal with the judgment referred to by the Respondents i.e. M/S Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. (Supra) . In the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed that if an order of dismissal is passed by the employer and the learned Labour Court affirms the said order, the date of the dismissal would be the date of the order of dismissal by the employer and not the date when the learned Labour Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The proposition of law so observed in the said judgment calls for no separate interpretation. But the question arises herein is as to whether the said proposition could be applied in the present facts. The answer to the same can be arrived at if an additional fact which is present in the instant case is added i.e. what happens when the order of the dismissal affirmed by the learned Labour Court but subsequently set aside by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The answer would be that the order of dismissal no longer exists. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. (Supra) cannot be applied to the present facts. 33. The above analysis would therefore show that all orders of punishment i.e. order dated 06.03.2007, 17.11.2011 and 12.10.2013 no longer subsist or are operative or are capable of enforcement in the eye of law. At the cost of repetition, this Court observes that the order dated 06.03.2007 having merged with the order dated 17.11.2011 no longer subsists or remains operative or is capable of enforcement in the eye of law. The consequential effect is that till 04.01.2017, there existed no order of punishment. 34. Now, therefore the question arises is as to whether the punishment of compulsory retirement could have been imposed w.e.f. 06.03.2007. The consequential effect is that till 04.01.2017, there existed no order of punishment. 34. Now, therefore the question arises is as to whether the punishment of compulsory retirement could have been imposed w.e.f. 06.03.2007. In the opinion of this Court, the punishment for compulsory retirement could not have been imposed upon the Petitioner w.e.f. 06.03.2007 for the simple reason that the order dated 06.03.2007 being no longer in existence, the Respondent Authorities could not have taken the said order dated 06.03.2007 as a relevant consideration. It is no longer res-integra that when a decision is taken on the basis of non-existent materials, the said decision suffers from malice in law. Secondly, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Niwas Bansal (supra) wherein one of the issues involved was as to whether the punishment order of dismissal from service could have been passed with retrospective effect. The facts in the said case was that the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service vide an order dated 23.04.1985. Thereupon, the order of penalty was challenged in an Appeal which was rejected. Being aggrieved, the employee therein preferred a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of penalty on the ground that there was no service of the enquiry report. The High Court vide an order dated 22.05.1998 set aside the order of penalty thereby giving liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to take a fresh decision after serving the enquiry report. Subsequent thereto, after serving the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority took a decision and passed an order of dismissal dated 22.11.2001 but giving effect from 23.04.1985. The Supreme Court in the said judgment observed that it was not permissible for the bank to pass an order of dismissal with retrospective effect as it would amount annulling the order of the High Court dated 22.05.1998 by the Bank. In the backdrop of the said principles, let this Court apply the same to the present facts. The Supreme Court in the said judgment observed that it was not permissible for the bank to pass an order of dismissal with retrospective effect as it would amount annulling the order of the High Court dated 22.05.1998 by the Bank. In the backdrop of the said principles, let this Court apply the same to the present facts. It would be seen that if the compulsory retirement is permitted to be given effect from 06.03.2007, the orders passed in the various proceedings by this Court as referred to herein above would be rendered redundant and annulled by the Disciplinary Authority for which it is the opinion of this Court that the compulsory retirement punishment in the present case cannot be given effect from 06.03.2007. 35. The question however arises as to from which date, the compulsory retirement punishment could be given effect to. In the opinion of this Court as the order of punishment was passed only on 04.01.2017 and the only date mentioned i.e. 06.03.2007 is considered irrelevant by this Court, the order of compulsory retirement punishment has therefore to apply only w.e.f. 04.01.2017. 36. This Court further had taken note of the principles as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of A.G.D. Reddy (supra) and in the opinion of this Court the said principles would not come in the way in interfering with the effective date of imposition of the punishment in view of the reasons assigned hereinabove. 37. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) This Court has not interfered with the order dated 04.01.2017 insofar as imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. However, the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner with effect from 06.03.2007 is interfered with. (ii) The imposition of penalty vide order dated 04.01.2017 by which the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner shall operate with effect from 04.01.2017 and not prior thereto. (iii) The petitioner herein would be entitled to the CCS (Pension) in terms of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as well as other retirement benefits permissible taking into consideration that the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 04.01.2017. (iii) The petitioner herein would be entitled to the CCS (Pension) in terms of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as well as other retirement benefits permissible taking into consideration that the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 04.01.2017. (iv) The Respondent Authorities are directed to compute the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the basis of the above observations and pay him the arrears within a period of 4 (four) months from the date a certified copy of the instant judgment is served upon the respondent No.4. The respondents shall thereupon regularly disburse the petitioner’s entitlement to his pension as per the extant provisions of law. (v) There shall be no order as to costs.