(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the order dated 19-11-1990 made in OA No. 641 of 1988 by the central Administrative tribunal, Madras bench. Undisputed facts are that the appellant is an INDIAN POLICE SERVICE direct recruit cadre officer 1966 in the Tamil Nadu Police Service. At the relevant time he was Additional Inspector General of Police. On the basis of recommendation by the Review Committee on 12/6/1986 for considering his case for promotion, the government of India had called for a special report and the State government had submitted its report on 12/6/1987. Therein it was stated that since his posting as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore, there were persistent reports of his acquiring large assets and of his getting money from his subordinates. While no specific evidence of receiving money from his subordinates was forthcoming, he himself had come up with a request for permission to acquire a coffee estate in the name of his wife for Rs. 25 lakhs on the basis that he would pay Rs. 5 lakhs by mortgaging his house and rest of the amount by bank loans. Formal enquiries indicated that the estate would be worth about at least Rs. 60 lakhs. As the transaction appeared to be highly suspicious, confidential preliminary enquiries were made by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption into the source for this large amount. It was stated that in the CRs of the period from 1/4/1985 to 30/9/1985, it has been recorded that his work as Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation, Madras, was not satisfactory. It has also been recorded that his integrity during this period could not be certified, as he came out with a proposal about purchase of an estate by his wife and son valued at a few lakhs. An officer with not much of patrimony to boast about, the transaction is full of suspicion. government have been requested to have this further verified through the Vigilance Agency. It was also noted that pending further the reports, the entries on verification of the integrity was awaited.

(3) ON consideration of the above report, the government of India in its proceedings dated 20/8/1987 recorded thus:

"THE undersigned is directed to enclose copies of briefs regarding a proposal to retire Shri K. Kandaswamy, INDIAN POLICE SERVICE (TN: 1966 from Indian Police Service under Rule 16(3 of AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958, with the request that it may kindly be placed before the central Establishment Board/Appointments Committee of the Cabinet Secretariat for consideration and orders."

(4) PURSUANT thereto, decision was taken to compulsorily retire the appellant from service and order was passed to compulsorily retire the appellant from service under the impugned order dated 9/2/1988.

(5) SHRI S. Sivasubramaniam, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, contended that the appellant had all through an unblemished record of service. The assets with regard to the poultry business conducted by his wife and son were enquired and found accounted for, there was no further evidence to conclude that the appellant is having any disproportionate assets. When a crime was registered against him, after recommendation for his retention in the service, the order of compulsory retirement is not a bona fide exercise of power. There is no report submitted by the Vigilance or the Anti-Corruption Department regarding the alleged disproportionate assets. His admission was only of having Rs. 5 lakhs worth house. Therefore, the view taken by the government to compulsorily retire the appellant from service is clearly arbitrary and untenable. We find no force in the contention.

(6) IT is seen that the government of India had requested the State government to send special report on the integrity of the appellant. As stated earlier, the government had sent the report. The report thus contained specific averment, namely, that the appellant himself had come forward see