Bhagahali Prosad Banerjee. J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 17th May, 1989 passed by Justice A.K. Sengupta, J. in C.O. No. 11723 (W) of 1987 allowing the writ application and setting aside the order of compulsory retirement retiring the writ petitioner - opposite party from service passed on 9th December, 1987. The fact of this case is that the writ petitioner - opposite party joined Calcutta Port Commissioner (now known as Calcutta Port Trust) as Assistant Engineer in or about 9th March, 1959. On 1st November, 1963 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (since designated as Junior Executive Engineer) and on 4th July, 1970 he was confirmed in the post of Assistant Engineer. On 20th December, 1972 he was promoted to the post of Senior Executive Engineer.
(2.) The writ petitioner opposite party was asked by the Chief Engineer by letter dated 18th January, 1982 whether he was willing to be considered for one temporary post. of Deputy Chief Engineer under the Haldia Dock Complex. On 21st May, 1984 he was confirmed as Junior Executive Engineer and in August, 1984 he was given one stagnation increment. On 7th May, 1985 the writ petitioner opposite party submitted a statement of movable properties held by him as on 31st December 1984 as was asked to submit the same by the Chief Engineer. Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta by a letter dated 26th February 1986 asked the writ petitioner opposite party to clarify certain points regarding the statement of movable properties e.g. insurance policy and share/debenture/bonds. By a letter dated 7th March, 1986 the writ petitioner opposite party submitted his reply clarifying the same. It appears that the Chairman was not satisfied with the explanation and by his letter dated 11th April, 1986 received by the petitioner on 22nd April, 1986 the Deputy Chairman asked for further clarification. The petitioner submitted further clarification on 29th April, 1986. On 1st August, 1986 the writ petitioner opposite party was given second stagnation increment. Thereafter on 7th February, 1987 the Chief Engineer recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer. Thereafter on 9th September, 1987 the Chief Vigilance Officer, Calcutta Port Trust through the Chief Engineer advised the writ petitioner opposite party to call on the officer of the said Chief Vigilance Officer. On 14th September, 1987 in connection with the same enquiry and to obtain a written statement from the writ petitioner opposite party, the writ petitioner/ opp. party duly appeared before the Chief Vigilance Officer and deposed whatever required by them. It is stated that the writ petitioner opposite party was to aware of the outcome of the said enquiry conducted by the Chief Vigilance Officer. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a order of compulsory retirement. On 10th December, 1987 the writ petitioner opposite party was served with a order of compulsory retirement issued by the Chairman dated 9th December, 1987 compulsorily retiring the writ petitioner opposite party from the service when he was 51 years 6 months. It was the case of premature retirement 61/2 years before attaining the normal age of superannuation. It is admitted position that the said order of compulsory retirement was based on the basis of recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance Officer on 6.11.1987 to the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust. The contents of the said recommendation is set out hereinbelow: "To Sri M.K. Kargupta, IAS, Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust, 6th November, 1997 Sub:Doubtful integrity of Sri Debaprosad Tagore, Sr. Exe. Engineer of the Chief Engineers Department, Calcutta Port Trust.
(3.) Sri S.K. Sinha, Partner of Messrs. R.M. Sinha & Co. submitted a written complaint dated 28.1.1986 against Sri D.P. Tagore, Sr. Exe. Engineer alleging that in the last week of December, 1985 Sri Tagore called the complainant in his Chamber and enquired whether the complainant was known to any senior officer of the Calcutta Port Trust and when the complainant expressed that he had none to be known to him. Sri Tagore wanted to know whether the complainant kept some provision in their tender for obliging the port personnel for smooth running of the work. Sri Tagore explained that in the port working there was no group of officers to be obliged, but individually some of them were to be satisfied properly for establishing better business relation, smooth sailing and to continue work in Calcutta Port Trust.;