K.P.ACHARYA, J. - (1.) In this application under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the petitioner prays for quashing the order bearing number E(O) 1 -87/SR -10/26 dated 21.7.87 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and he has further prayed to pass a decree in his favour for the consequential financial benefits after reinstatement.
(2.) Shortly stated the case of the petitioner is that he joined the Railway Service as an Asstt. Surgeon, Gr -1 in the Eastern Railway on 29.7.65. Further the case of the petitioner is that though he has served the department with all sincerity and loyalty, the petitioner was ordered to be compulsorily retired with immediate effect vide memo No. E(O) 1 -87/SR -10/26 dated 21.7.87 issued by the Ministry of Railways conveying the orders of the President of India. Being aggrieved by this order of compulsory retirement the petitioner had filed this application on 26.4,88 and later this matter came up for hearing before a Division Bench and vide judgement dated 13.7.90 the Division Bench dismissed the application holding that the compulsory retirement of the petitioner had been passed bona fide in public interest. Against this judgement a review petition was filed forming subject matter of review application No.91 of 90. This review application was heard by the same Division Bench in which it was urged that dossiers of another Doctor was filed and considered by the Bench in OA 352 of 88 and thereafter the order of compulsory retirement of the present petitioner was confirmed which is, prejudicial to the interest of the present petition, Since the opposite parties in OA 352 of 88 admitted that CR dossiers of another Doctor with a similar name ( S. K. Das), was in fact produced through inadvertence during the hearing of OA 352 of 88, the Bench allowed the review application and cancelled the judgement passed in OA 352 of 88, on 13.7.90 and ordered the case will be reheard. In these circumstances the case has come up again for hearing.
(3.) In the counter the opposite parties maintained that the order passed by the President compulsorily retiring the petitioner is in public interest and therefore the impugned order should be upheld and the case should be dismissed being devoid of merit.;