(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the order of the central Administrative tribunal, Bombay bench dated 19-7-1991 made in OA No. 425 of 1986. The respondents case, while working as Collector of Customs (Appeals) at Bombay, after completing 50 years of service (sic age), had come up before a Screening Committee consisting of senior officers to review the respondents performance for continuance in service. The Committee met on 11/2/1984. On consideration of the entire material placed before it, it recommended to compulsorily retire the respondent from service under Fundamental Rule 56(j) on "doubtful integrity". The competent authority passed the order on 10/2/1986 under FR 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules compulsorily retiring him in public interest. As slated earlier, the respondent had questioned the correctness thereof in the Administrative tribunal which by its order had set aside the order on the ground that there are no adverse entries in the character rolls of "doubtful integrity" of the respondent and that, therefore, the two instances should not be taken into consideration in compulsorily retiring the respondent from service.

(3) TO satisfy ourselves whether the action of the appellant is based on any material, since the tribunal had given finding that it had perused the record and was not satisfied, we had directed Shri N.N. Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, to keep the record ready and place before us the character rolls as well as the report submitted to the Review Committee, views of the Review Committee made in that behalf. This has been done. We have perused the proceedings of the Review Committee dated 24/12/1985, staling:

"THE Review Committee considered the report of the Screening Committee, forwarded to us under Chairman CBECs note dated 18/12/19855. The Review Committee considered the report and the records and agrees with the recommendation that Shri D.P. Arya and Shri A.K. Patnaik are fit to be prematurely retired under FR 56(j)."

(4) WE have seen the material placed before the Screening Committee, the Review Committee and the competent authority in the proceedings referred to hereinbefore. It is stated that the department had given classification guidance for classifying Dodecyl Benzene under Heading 17.10(1 as against Heading 38.01/19. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, had issued a Departmental Tariff Advice on the basis of the minutes of the Tariff Conference held at Mangalore in September 1984 according to which Dodecyl Benzene was to be classified under Heading 38.19. The advice of the C.C.C. Nomenclature Directorate was mentioned in the Tariff Advice. The date of this advice is 28/12/1984 and the date of the appellate decision bears 31/12/1984 which is very close to the date of the Advice. Even as late as October 1985, Shri Patnaik (the respondent herein) continued to classify Dodecyl Benzene as before the issue of the Tariff Advice. They concluded that by the wrong classification, the respondent had given benefit to a single party, namely, M/s Rajesh & Sons of Bombay alone to the tune of more than Rs. 2 crores. Similarly, in 32 appeals which the respondent has disposed of, he classified Saccharine to be cleared under REP Licence as "Electroplating Brightener", in spite of the fact that the Import Policy in Condition 5 of Appendix 17 is clear that this cannot be done, as Saccharine has been specifically banned under Appendix 4, and an item allowed on an REP Licence under Appendix 17 of the Policy should either be one which has been specifically named in that Appendix which. Saccharine was not, or it should not be a banned item, which Saccharine was. On the basis of this material, they doubted the integrity of the respondent and bfa.d taken decision to compulsorily retire the officer from service.

(5) IT is contended by the counsel for the respondent that he was not communicated the instructions regarding the fi