UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHAIK ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad by its order dated 3rd October, 1988 held that the Divisional Railway Manager (BG) SC Railway, Secunderabad was not competent to pass the impugned order dated 25th April, 1986 retiring the railway servant Shaik Ali from service under.Rule 2046(h)(ii) of Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II - Pension Rules (hereinafter called 'the Code). The Union of India feeling aggrieved by the said order has come in appeal to this Court by special leave.

(2.) The respondent Shaik Ali joined the erstwhile Nizam State Railway Service as Pointsman in 1953 or thereabouts and secured promotions from time to time in the course of his service, the last promotion being as Yard Master in the revised scale of Rs. 550-750 on 31st January, 1986. The facts show that he was on duty between 14.00 and 22.00 hours on 23rd February, 1986 at Sanatnagar Station. As his reliever did not turn up at 23.00 hours, he was compelled to perform duty from 22.00 hours to 08.00 hours of 24th February, 1986. At about 23.15 hours, he permitted the staff working under him to have their meals and report for duty as soon as possible. As the staff members did not return to duty within a reasonable time he went towards the cabin where they usually took their meals. At that time the Divisional Safety Officer, A. Bharat Bhushan, came down from the cabin and inquired of the respondent's identity. The respondent countered by inquiring about the identity of the said officer. It is the respondent's say that as he did not know the said officer he asked for his identity before disclosing his identity. The officer was annoyed at the behaviour of the respondent and threatened him with dire consequences. It is the respondent's case that immediately thereafter he was placed under suspension. When he went to meet the officer at the suggestion of the Station Superintendent, the said officer behaved rudely and refused to listen to his explanation. By a subsequent order dated 19th March, 1986, the respondent was kept under further suspension w.e.f 4th March, 1986. He was not charge-sheeted nor was any inquiry held against him but he was visited with the order of premature retirement dated 25th April, 1986, the relevant part whereof reads as under:

(3.) Under Rule 2046(a) of the Code ordinarily every railway servant would retire on the. day he attains the age of 58 years. However, notwithstanding the said provision, Rule 2046(h) entitles the appointing authority to retire him before he reaches the age of superannuation. Rule 2045(h), insofar as it is relevant for our purposes, reads as under: