Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Raj vs Satya Dev Azad & Anr on 23 April, 2009
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
1
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3026/2009
State of Rajasthan Vs. Satya Dev Azad & Anr.
Date of Order :: 23.04.2009
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr Hemant Choudhary, for the petitioner/s.
Mr S.S. Khatri, for the respondent-Caveator.
...
The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur by its order dated 9.7.2008 accepted an appeal preferred by respondent/ government-servant giving challenge to the order dated 7.9.2000 retiring him compulsorily as per provisions of Rule 53 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. The only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that while placing a government servant under retirement compulsorily entire service record is required to be examined and not only of the recent years. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the grant of selection grade to the government-servant does not wipe out adverse remarks entered into annual confidential records specially in the circumstances where the criteria for promotion is purely seniority and as such on basis of the grant of selection grade it cannot be said that the adverse remarks earlier entered in ACRs should have not been taken into consideration while considering a case of a government servant for his placement under compulsory retirement.
2
I have examined the order impugned and also the record available. As per Rule 53(1) a government-servant either on completion of 15 years of service or on attaining the age of 50 years may be retired from service in public interest, if the appointing authority is satisfied that the concerned government servant has lost his utility on account of indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of the official duties.
Learned Tribunal while examining case of the respondent/government-servant in quite detail considered all relevant facts and reached at a conclusion that the ingredients required to retire a government-servant compulsorily were absent in the instant matter. The entire discussion made by the Tribunal reads as follows:
"अप ल र क सबध म यह पकट ह त ह कक उसक अन व य सव न वत! क समबनध म समच$ &त तर(क स एव ईम द र( स तव& र ह( ककय गय ह। हम र मत म "स/ न ग कमट(" एव "ररवय2 कमट(" समच$ &त तर(क स अप तववक क इसतम ल ह( ककय तर अप ल र क अन व य सव न वत! क म मल क परम न य$क5 पटव र( क रप म तव& र ह( करक, &त$र शण कम& र( क रप म तव& र ककय गय ह (पदर 5), जबकक अप ल र क न य$क5 ह( पटव र( क पद पर ह$ई ह। यह भ पकट ह त ह कक अप ल र क सबध म ज द व त<क वत वत= र क क दण? ददय गय ह, वह व< 1977 क ह, ज कक अप ल र क सव क र$रआत म व< 1975 क घट क ललए ह,ज अन व य सव न वत! क 25 व< प2व क घट ह। यह भ पकट ह त ह कक उसक व त<क क य मल 2 य क पनतवद व< 1997-98 म ज पनतक2ल दटपपणणय क गई ह, व इस पकनत क ह( ह, जजसक क रण अन व य सव न वत ककय ज आवशयक ह गय र । यह भ पकट ह त ह कक अन व य सव न वत! क आदर र जय सरक र क नत एव पररपत क तवर= ह, कयLकक उपर 5 नत एव पररपत क 3 अ स $ र ककस क लमक क अन व य सव न वत! क उदशय दण?
सवरप ह( ह & दहए, बजलक इसक उदशय अकमणय, भष,
बईम व क र क लमक क ज दहत म र जय सव स
न कल ह। उपर 5 पररपत क अ $स र कम& र( क
सतयन ष क म मल क छ ? कर सव न वत! स ठTक 5 व< प2व
क व त<क क य मल 2 य क पनतवद दख ज & दहए। यह भ
पकट ह त ह कक अप ल र क अन व य सव न वत! स ततक ल
प2व क सव य बबलक$ल स फ सर $ र( रह( ह तर उसक तवर=
ऐस क ई तवपर(त सव लभलख ह( ह, जजसक आध र पर उसक
अन व य रप स सव न व! कर आवशयक ह गय र ।
अप ल र क पनतक2ल व त<क क य मल 2 य क पनतवद व<
1977-78 स 1981-82 क अवचध क हY, ज अन व य सव न वत! स लगभग 18 व< प2व क हY। अप ल र क अन व य सव न वत! स प2व क प Z& व<[ म म त व< 1997-98 क ह( व त<क क य मल 2 य क पनतवद पनतक2ल पकनत क ह, जजसम अप ल र क "क य असत <ज क व अनत/मण कर व लL स स ठ-ग ठ रख व ल " अककत ककय गय ह, ककनत$ व< 1997- 98 क उ5 पनतक2ल व त<क क य मल 2 य क पनतवद म क य असत <ज क व अनत/लमयL स स ठ-ग ठ रख क ज आर प लग य गय ह, यह अतयनत असपष व स म नय पकनत क ह व इस ब बत क ई सपष उद हरण व तथयL क उललख ह( ककय गय ह। इस व< क अनतरर5 अप ल र क , सव न वत! स 5 व< प2व क क ई पनतक2ल सव लभलख ह( ह एव व< 1997-98 क पनतक2ल व त<क क य मल 2 यक पनतवद क आध र पर ह( यह ह( म ज सकत कक अप ल र सव म रख ज हत$ अय गय, अकमणय, भष, अ वशयक, अ $पय ग ह गय ह और उस ल क दहत म सव म रख ज उच&त ह( ह । हम र मत म उपर 5 तवपर(त सव लभलख क आध र पर अप ल र क भष एव अकमणय कम& र( ह( कह ज सकत ह।
अप ल र क अन व य सव न वत! क ललए व< 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 एव 1997-98 क व< क पनतक2ल व त<क क य मल 2 य क पनतवद L क पतयर द र आध र ब य गय ह, वह( दस 2 र( ओर दद क 23.05.1992 द र उस पनतक2ल दटपपणणय कर क पश त 15 क सव एव 18 क सत <ज क सव प2ण कर क आध र पर &यन त वत म पद ककय गय हY, जजसस अप ल र क व< 1992 क पव2 क सव लभलख म वणणत पनतक2लत सम प ह ज त ह।"
From reading of the discussion made by the Tribunal it is apparent that the screening committee, reviewing committee and the 4 appointing authority of the respondent/government-servant failed to consider the relevant facts relating to his service career and placed him under compulsory retirement without having adequate public interest. From perusal of the record, it also appears that the screening committee as well as reviewing committee just noted down certain events of the respondent/government-servants service career, and thereafter, without discussing and examining so as to how his retention in service would have effected public interest adversely, made a recommendation to the appointing authority to retire him compulsorily. The appointing authority without applying his independent mind accepted the recommendations made by the screening committee and reviewing committee ipse dixit and passed an order dated 7.9.2000 retiring the respondent/government-servant compulsorily. The sole discussion made by the appointing authority before issuing the order dated 7.9.2000 reads as follows:
"ररवय2 कमट( , स/ न ग कमट( क ररप ट पर तव& र ककय तर सबचधत कम& ररयL क सव लभलख व व त<क क य मल2 य क पनतवद L क न र(कण ककय तद स $ र श रत ल ल ब हर , पटव र(, श ग प लद स पटव र(, श जसर म, श द( दय ल पटव र(, श ओमपक र ज र पटव र(, ब लद 2 पटव र(, धन लसह पटव र(, सतयदव पटव र(, श घमण? र म पटव र( इ कम& ररयL क र जसर लसतवल सतवस पनर रलस 1996 क ध र 53(1) क अनतगत अन व य सव न वत ककय ज त ह। ध र 53(2) क अनतगत ज दहत म सव न वनत करत ह$ए त म ह क वत र लर न यम नतगत तद $स र द( ज त ह।"
The noting referred above on its face discloses complete non- application of mind by the appointing authority . This Court in the case 5 of LRs of Late Shri Pukhraj Gehlot Vs. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur & Ors. (SBCivil Writ Petition No.1691/2003) decided on 1.3.2007 while examining the issue regarding the role of appointing authority while exercising powers under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 held as under:
"The appointing authority is always require to examine entire service record of a Government servant and then to form a definite opinion on basis of such record that the public interest demands for premature retirement of the Government servant. In the instant matter it was all the more necessary as the screening committee and review committee after examining entire service record of the petitioner opined to continue him in service.
It is true that it is exclusive and subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority that may result into compulsory retirement of a Government servant in public interest, but such satisfaction must be based on adequate material to provide a valid cradle for maintaining the decision for premature retirement. An appointing authority while deciding to retire a Government servant in public interest in exercising powers under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 is under obligation to record the reasons to satisfy himself that the Government servant has lost his utility on account of his indolence, doubtful integrity, incompetence and inefficiency in discharging official duties though there is no need to convey these reasons to the Government servant."
In the present case the appointing authority has given a conclusion without forming any objective opinion by considering service record of the respondent/government-servant that he has lost his utility on account of indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of the official duties.
6
Learned Tribunal while accepting appeal against the order dated 7.9.2000 has taken into consideration all relevant factors those are required to be taken into consideration while exercising powers by the appointing authority under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 and reached at the conclusion that the order of compulsory retirement was not as per law.
I do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by learned Tribunal for the reasons given above, and therefore, no interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. The petition for writ is dismissed accordingly.
(GOVIND MATHUR), J.
Jgoyal'