A. K. Mookherji, J. - (1.) This rule is directed against an order passed by the Supdt. Mechanical (W) Jamalpur, dated 22nd March, 1974 under clause b(ii) of Rule 2046 of Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II directing that the petitioner shall retire from service with effect from the afternoon on 30th June, 1974 or from the date of expiry of three months computed from the date of Service of the notice on him, whichever is later.
(2.) It is contended by Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner that there was no material before the authorities on which the said authorities came to the conclusion that the petitioner's service shall not be retained beyond 55 years. The materials germane to the issue have not been disclosed by the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority has not applied its mind to the petitioner's record of performance upto the time of the review. The entire records were placed before me. It appears that on 23rd July, 1973 a confidential report was sent by one A. P. Agarwal to the effect that efficiency and mental alterness of the petitioner have deteriorated. The said A. P. Agarwal affirmed an affidavit in this Rule, but nowhere he has disclosed on what materials he came to such a conclusion about the deterioration of the mental faculties of the petitioner in as much as the confidential report of the petitioner for the year ending on March, 1973 shows that physical disability nil. The Review Committee considered the petitioner's case on 3rd December, 1973 and refused to recommend the petitioner for retention beyond 55 years presumably oh the basis of that report given by the said A.P. Agarwal. It is surprising that thereafter on 28th March 1974 Shri K.K. Biswas, Distt. Engineer, sent report regarding the petitioner. The report releases to Shri D. N. Prosad during the period from the end of October, 1973 to the beginning of February, 1974. The special report reads as follows: "I have noticed the working of Shri D. N. Prosad, officiating Head Clerk. He had shown a lot of improvement in the office work in and he was particularly very useful in dealing with audits, in other matters relating to the preparation of the completion report of estimates. He had also shown interest in the extra curricular activities apart from the office working which helped to create special atmosphere in Gauhati Construction Railway Colony. His extension of service beyond the age of 55 years may be considered sympathetically."
(3.) If a person was found to be physically unfit in July, 1973 he could not be recommended for rentention for his work in February, 1974. In the petition certain allegations have been made by the petitioner against the particular officer Agarwal. It appears from the face of the records that the said Agarwal did not apply his mind at all when he sent his report about the physical fitness of the petitioner in July, 1973. Mr. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the Respondents made & suggestion that the petitioner should appear before a Medical Board and if he is found fit in that case he shall be retained beyond 55 years of age. It is a fair suggestion and Mr. Chatterji appearing on behalf of the petitioner accepts the same.;