To satisfy ourselves whether the action of the appellant is based on any material, since the Tribunal had given finding that it had perused the record and was number satisfied, we had directed Shri N.N. Goswami, the learned senior companynsel for the appellant, to keep the record ready and place before us the Character Rolls as well as the report submitted to the Review Committee, views of the Review Committee made in that behalf.
The companymittee met on February 11, 1984.
As stated earlier, the respondent had questioned the companyrectness thereof in the Administrative Tribunal which by its order had set aside the order on the ground that there are numberadverse entry in the Character Rolls of doubtful integrity of the respondent and that, therefore, the two instances should number be taken into companysideration in companypulsorily retiring the respondent from service.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench dated July 19, 1991 made in O.A. No.425 of 1986.
We have perused the proceedings of the Review Committee dated December 24, 1985, stating The Review Committee companysidered the report of the Screening Committee, forwarded to us under Chairman CBECs numbere dated 18.12.1985.
The companypetent authority passed the order on February 10, 1986 under F.R.56 j of the Fundamental Rules companypulsorily retiring him in public interest.
Leave granted.
This has been done.
The respondents case, while workings as Collector of Customs Appeals at Bombay, after companypleting 50 years of service, had companye up before a screening companymittee companysisting of senior officers to review the respondents performance for companytinuance in service.
