Order
1. The respondent herein was compulsorily retired by the order dated 29-8-1988. The validity of the said order came to be challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal by the respondent. The Tribunal, after elaborate consideration of the respective contentions urged on behalf of the parties in the light of the Rules contained in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol. II and instructions contained in Letter No. E-(P&A)L-77.RT-53 dated 15-11-1979, allowed the application and set aside the order of compulsory retirement passed against the respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellants herein filed writ petition before the High Court. The High Court, looking to the order passed by the Tribunal, the reasons given therein and on consideration of the submissions made on either side, did not find any good or valid ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. In that view, the High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants made submissions contending that the Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in interfering with the order of compulsory retirement passed against the respondent. In that, the submission was that the appellants had absolute powers to compulsorily retire the respondent from service and the scope of judicial review was not available in a case where an order of compulsory retirement was passed.
3. In opposition, the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent made submissions in support and justification of the impugned order. She pointed out to the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in annulling the order of compulsory retirement. She further added that in view of the elaborate guidelines given in the instructions dated 15-11-1979 aforementioned, the order of compulsory retirement passed without following those instructions, could not be sustained. According to her, the Tribunal as well as the High Court, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, were perfectly justified in setting aside the order of compulsory retirement.
4. The Tribunal referring the instructions dated 15-11-1979 on facts found that those instructions which were issued to see that the powers of compulsory retirement were not exercised arbitrarily or unfairly, were not followed. The Tribunal in the order specifically recorded that the learned counsel for the respondents before the Tribunal had not been able to furnish any other record which furnished information to the Review Committee except the note with the caption “Review” of cases under Rule 2046(h)R-II which reads:
“While issuing promotion orders of ADMOs to DMOs, it was seen that track record of certain ADMOs is constantly bad which requires to be reviewed.”
5. In the impugned order it is further noticed that the Committee reviewed the cases of a few doctors including the respondent and found that they had earned unsatisfactory CRs for the last 10 years. It is on the basis of the unsatisfactory performance they recommended their cases to the Railway Board for their premature retirement. It is also recorded in the order of the Tribunal that the Committee had not drawn any other proceedings except what is stated above. It is not the case of the appellants that the integrity of the respondent was doubtful or questionable. All that is said against the respondent is that his services were unsatisfactory and he was inefficient. If that be so, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal the authorities should have considered the case of the respondent whether he could be retained in service in a lower post from which he was promoted to a higher post. If a person was found inefficient in a promoted post, he could be retained in service at least in the lower post. This is one of the requirements of the instructions aforementioned. It is clear from the records that no such consideration was made before the order of compulsory retirement was passed. It may also be noted incidentally that the adverse remarks said to have been made against the respondent were not communicated to him. Further the so-called adverse remarks were either good or average; there appears to be a misreading of these remarks by the Committee. It will not be necessary, to record any more reasons in the light of the detailed considerations recorded by the Tribunal to show that the order of compulsory retirement against the respondent could not be sustained for want of following instructions aforementioned. More so when the High Court also affirmed the same. It may be added that the specifically alleged mala fides against Appellant 3 by the respondent were not denied or refuted. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in quashing the order of compulsory retirement. The High Court having seen the detailed order passed by the Tribunal, affirmed the same recording the reasons in the impugned judgment. In the light of the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, which are affirmed by the High Court, we do not think it is an appropriate case which calls for our interference. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Consequently, it stands dismissed, but, with no order as to costs.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has suffered three heart attacks and his pension has not yet been settled. This being the position, the appellants shall do well in settling his retiral benefits including pension. The order shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.