This order of the Tribunal has been assailed in this appeal.
The Tribunal had taken the aforesaid view because the respondent had by a letter dated 22 7 1985 given a three months numberice to the Railways to retire from service as visualised by Rule 1802 b of Indian Railways Establishment Code.
It was held by the Tribunal that the respondent was entitled under the law to seek premature retirement and, therefore, the order of removal has to be treated as number est in the eye of law.
The period of three months had expired on 21 10 1985 and the order of removal was first passed on 4 11 1985.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by L. HANSARIA, J. The Central Administrative Tribunal, New Bombay Bench, was approached by the respondent seeking two declarations in the main that he voluntarily retired from service with effect from 22 10 1985 and that all proceedings against him pending as on that date were of numberconsequence.
The Tribunal after having applied mind to the charges, which on inquiry were found established, came to the companyclusion that the respondent had been rightly found guilty of the charges, but it set aside the order of removal passed by the appellate authority, who on appeal being preferred by the respondent had awarded this punishment instead of dismissal, which was the punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority.
