JUDGMENT

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.—Heard. Special leave granted. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal itself is being disposed of.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as below.

3. The respondent joined Indian Railway Stores Service as Class I Officer on June 12, 1953. He was promoted to the senior scale as District Controller of Stores in 1974, as Additional Controller of Stores in 1980 and as Controller of Stores in 1982.

4. At the relevant time the respondent was posted as Controller of Stores, Metro Railway, Calcutta. A major penalty charge-sheet dated December 5, 1989 was served on the respondent on the charge of finalisation of a tender case of 1983. Another major penalty charge-sheet was served on the respondent on April 23, 1990 on the charge of construction of a residential house at Salt Lake, Calcutta during 1981-87 at high cost.

5. The respondent was issued the impugned order dated April 24, 1990 by the Joint Secretary (E), Railway Board, on behalf of the President, by which the respondent was compulsorily retired. The said order could be served on the respondent only on January 28, 1991 in view of certain court proceedings initiated by him. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement of the Railway Board the respondent preferred an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta. In the said application the respondent inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:

"(a) [A]n order directing the respondents to withdraw, revoke and cancel the impugned order dated April 24, 1990/January 29, 1991 issued by respondent 2 and further directing the respondents to act in accordance with law;

(b) an order commanding the respondents to forthwith send unto this Honble Tribunal the entire records of the case relating to the passing of the order retiring the applicant from service under Rule 1802(a) including the impugned order dated April 24, 1990/January 29, 1991 for their examination and for quashing the same upon such examination for doing conscionable justice to the applicant;

(c) an order directing the respondents the continuance or retention of the applicant in service till he attains the age of superannuation on July 31, 1993 with all consequential benefits."

6. The appellants opposed the said application. It was stated on behalf of the appellants before the Tribunal that in memorandum dated June 20, 1989 addressed to the respondent it was mentioned that had the respondent disposed of the tender expeditiously, the lowest offer which was filed, could have been availed of within the validity period offered by the firm and the railway would not have been forced to accept a higher rate and it also indicated lack of proper management of the purchase functions under the respondent. The aforesaid lapses on the part of the respondent were brought to the notice of the respondent so that he may be careful in future. Attention of the Tribunal was also drawn by the department towards a statement showing details of present and past vigilance cases involving the respondent. As regards the present case, there was a list of six, three of which were stated to be under investigation. These were regarding alleged favours shown to a firm and possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of over rupees two lakhs. In the fourth case, the CVS (Central Vigilance Commission) advised initiation of a major penalty proceedings on November 24, 1988. In the fifth case, CVS advised issue of recorded warning on November 16, 1988. In the sixth case, CVS on reconsideration advised closure on February 29, 1989. It was submitted before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellants herein that FR 56(j) and the corresponding Railway Rule 1802(a) of the Railway Establishment Code, Volume II, 1987 Edition, under which the respondent was prematurely retired, are identical. The right to retire a Government servant prematurely is an absolute one and t