- (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- (Panda) L-T7/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.