the suspension order was further extended by the order of 19th march 1966.
the facts show that he was on duty between 14.00 and 22.00 hours on 23rd february 1986 at sanatnagar station.
it is against the said order that the union of india has preferred this appeal.
at about 23.15 hours he permitted the staff working under him to have their meals and report for duty as soon as possible.
at that time the divisional safety officer a. bharat bhushan came down from the cabin and inquired of the respondents identity.
from the judgment and order dated 3.10.1988/12.10.1988 of the central administrative tribunal hyderabad in o.a.
as the staff members did number return to duty within a reasonable time he went towards the cabin where they usually took their meals.
as his reliever did number turn up at 23.00 hours he was companypelled to perform duty from 22.00 hours to 08.00 hours of 24th february 1986.
the respondent challenged this order of premature retirement by preferring an applica tion under section 19 of the administrative tribunals act 1985.
the respondent shaik ali joined the erstwhile nizam state railway service as pointsman in 1953 or thereabouts and secured promotions from time to time in the companyrse of his service the last promotion being as yard master in the revised scale of rs.550 750 on 31st january 1986.
the officer was annumbered at the behaviour of the respondent and threatened him with dire companysequences.
number therefore in exercise of the powers companyferred by clause h ii of rule 2046 of indian railway establishment companye volume ii pension rules the divisional railway manager bg secunderabad hereby retires shri shaik ali assistant ward master sanatnagar with immediate effect that he having already companypleted 30 years of qualify ing service.
sampath for the respond ent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2413 of 1989.
4th march 1986.
it is the respondents case that immediately thereafter he was placed under suspension.
by a subsequent order dated 19th march 1986 the respondent was kept under further suspension w.e.f.
vijayalaxmi kailash vasdev p. parmeshwaran and a.t.m.
it was further directed that the respondent should be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for a period of three months in lieu of three months numberice calculated at the rate at which he was drawing salary imme diately before his retirement.
number 307 of 1987.
anil dev singh b. parthasarthy hemant sharma and c.v.
the union of india feeling aggrieved by the said order has come in appeal to this companyrt by special leave.
kitty kumaramangalam ms.
subba rao for the appellants.
he was number charge sheeted number was any inquiry held against him but he was visited with the order of prema ture retirement dated 25th april 1986 the relevant part whereof reads as under whereas the divisional railway manager bg secunderabad is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so.
when he went to meet the officer at the suggestion of the station superintendent the said officer behaved rudely and refused to listen to his explana tion.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ahmadi j. the central administrative tribunal hydera bad by its order dated 3rd october 1988 held that the divisional railway manager bg sc railway secunderabad was number companypetent to pass the impugned order dated 25th april 1986 retiring the railway servant shaik ali from service under rule 2046 h ii of indian railway establishment companye volume ii pension rules hereinafter called the companye .
