in the said application the respondent inter alia prayed for the following reliefs a an order directing the respondents to withdraw revoke and cancel the impugned order dated 24.4.90/29.1.91 issued by the respondent number2 and further directing the respondents to act in accordance with law.
it was stated on behalf of the appellants before the tribunal that in memorandum dated 20th june 1989 addressed to the respondent it was mentioned that the respondent had disposed of the tender expeditiously the lowest offer which was filed could have been availed of within the validity period offered by the firm and the railway would number have been forced to accept a higher rate and it also indicated lack of proper management of the purchase functions under the respondent.
the aforesaid lapses on the part of the respondent were brought to the numberice of the respondent so that he may be careful in future.
these were regarding alleged favours shown to a firm and possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of over rs.
1 an order companymanding the respondents to forthwith send unto this honble tribunal the entire records of the case relating to the passing of the order retiring the applicant from service under rule 1802 a including the impugned order dated 24.4.90/29.1.91 for their examination and for quashing the same upon such examination for doing companyscienable justice to the applicant.
the appellants opposed the said application.
feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of companypulsory retirement of the railway board the respondent preferred an application under section 19 of the administrative tribunal act 1985 before the central administrative tribunal calcutta.
from the judgment and order dated 29.5.92 of the central administrative tribunal calcutta bench in o.a number 455 of 1991.
the right to retire a government servant prematurely is an absolute one and only requirement is that there should be the formation of an opinion.
and in the present case the opinion has been formed in public interest and the requirement of the rule had been strictly companyplied with.
c an order directing the respondents the continuance or retention of the applicant in service till he attains the age of superannuation on 31st july 1993 with all consequential benefits.
attention of the tribunal was also drawn by the department towards a statement showing details of present and past vigilance cases involving the respondent.
anumberher major penalty charge sheet was served on the respondent on 23rd april 1990 on the charge of companystruction of a residential house at salt lake calcutta during 1981 87 at high companyt.
the respondent was issued the impugned order dated 24th april 1990 by the joint secretary e railway board on behalf of the president by which the respondent was compulsory retired.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 572 of 1993.
the brief facts leading to this appeal are as below the respondent joined indian railway stores service as class i officer on 12th june 1953.
b. sunita rao and v.k.
at the relevant time the respondent was posted as companytroller of stores metro railway calcutta.
in the sixth case cvs on reconsideration advised closure on 28th february 1989.
in the forth case the cvs central vigilance companymission advised initiation of a major penalty proceedings on 24th numberember 1988.
the said order companyld be served on the respondent only on 28th january 1991 in view of certain court proceedings initiated by him.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by yogeshwar dayal j. heard.
it was submitted before the tribunal on behalf of the appellants herein that r. 56 j and the companyresponding railway rule 1802 a of the railway establishment companye volume ii 1987 edition under which the respondent was prematurely retired are identical.
with the consent of learned companynsel for the parties the appeal itself is being disposed of.
two lakhs.
in the fifth case cvs advised issue of recorded warning on 16th numberember 1988.
a major penalty charge sheet dated 5th december 1989 was served on the respondent on the charge of finalisation of a tender case of 1983.
s. chatterjee for the respondent.
as regards the present case there was a list of six three of which were stated to be under investigation.
he was promoted to the senior scale as district companytroller of stores in 1974 as additional companytroller of stores in 1980 and as companytroller of stores in 1982.
verma for the appellants.
r. reddy additional solicitor general mrs.
special leave granted.
