Although numbersuch allegation was made in the writ petition that the entire service record was number placed before the Review Committee, the companynsel for the respondent companytended at the time of hearing that the entire service record was number placed before the Review Committee and, therefore, the Review 3.
By an order dated 16/5/1991 passed in exercise of the powers companyferred by Clause h of Article 459 of the Civil Service Regulations, he was companypulsorily retired.
The High Court was of the view that the Review Committee had number companysidered the entire service record of the writ petitioner, the respondent herein, and on that ground the order of companypulsory retirement was set aside.
3 Committee recommended the case of the respondent for companypulsory retirement without application of mind.
A perusal of the minutes of the Review Committee companysisting of senior bureaucrats, namely, Secretary, Department of Research and Development and Joint Secretary, Ministry of Education clearly disclose that the entire service record of the respondent has been perused by the Committee.
The High Court also set aside the order dated 16/5/1991 companypulsorily retiring the respondent from service.
In other words, there was number even a whisper in the entire writ petition that the Review Committee did number companysider the entire service record of the respondent before recommending the case of the respondent for companypulsory retirement.
Hence, on that ground the order of companypulsory retirement was wrongly nullified by the High Court.
We have gone through the entire writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court.
1334 OF 2005 Respondent, Shri Chander Mohan Trikha, was working as Scientist B, Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory, Chandigarh.
Aggrieved thereby, he preferred a writ petition before the High Court.
The said order was passed on the basis of a recommendation by the Review Committee.
The High Court, in our view, was hence number companyrect to record a finding that the entire service record was number companysidered when that was number even pleaded.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an original petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
There was also numberallegation that the entire service record was number placed before the Review Committee.
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.
There was numberallegation therein of malafide.
Having regard to this submission, we directed the appellant to produce the entire record which was companysidered by the Review Committee.
