RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.K.M.Lodha, J.
Bhootaram - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 342 of 1980.
Decided On : 2-02-1980
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - PATWARI - RULE 244(2) OF RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES, 1958 - ADVERSE ENTRIES IN A.C. RS. - COMMUNICATION - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Patwari, was compulsorily retired under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1958. He challenged the order of compulsory retirement on the grounds that (1) the appointing authority had failed to exercise independent discretion due to a circular mandating the recommendations of a screening committee, (2) adverse entries in the A.C. Rs. were not communicated to him, and (3) his case for compulsory retirement had been considered in 1976 and 1977 without any new material emerging.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that (1) the appointing authority had exercised independent discretion and was not bound by the recommendations of the screening committee, (2) communication of adverse entries is not necessary in cases of compulsory retirement, and (3) the court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the appointing authority in the matter of compulsory retirement.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointing authority had failed to exercise independent discretion due to a circular mandating the recommendations of a screening committee. 2. Whether adverse entries in the A.C. Rs. were required to be communicated to the petitioner. 3. Whether the court could sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the appointing authority in the matter of compulsory retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The circular in question did not mandate the appointing authority to issue orders in terms of the recommendation of the screening committee, and the mere fact that the appointing authority was required to pass orders immediately did not imply that it could not exercise its independent judgment. 2. Communication of adverse entries is not necessary in cases of compulsory retirement, as it does not involve any stain or stigma or entail any penalty or civil consequences. 3. The court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the appointing authority in the matter of compulsory retirement, as long as the decision was made in good faith and on the basis of relevant material.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
"Attention is invited to Appointments (A - II CR) Department No. F. 24(55) Appts (4)57 pt. 1 Cr. II/GR dated the 13th January 1955, where in procedure was laid down for compulsory retirement of Ministerial Staff in the State under rule 244(2) of the RSR contents of the above order have been reviewed and in modification of previous instructions of the subject, the following procedure is prescribed for being followed by the various departments:-
Staff in the District Including Staff of the Range Level Offices I.E. DIR Dy. Director etc. 1. Governor 2. Appointing authority if it is other than the Collector, otherwise a senior officer nominated by the Collector. Member
Collector of the District concerned.
On receipt of the recommendations of the committee, retirement orders shall be issued immediately by the concerned appointing authority as per specimen enclosed."
The submission of the learned Counsel is that the appointing authority, because of the mandatory character of the aforesaid circular, could not act independently and was bound by the recommendations of the screening committee. In this connection, he placed strong reliance on
"Whereas Shri Bhootaram Patwari Rewat has completed 25 years of qualifying service attained the age of 50 years.
Now, therefore, In pursuance of the delegation made under Sub-rule (2) of rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, vide F.D.'s order No. F. 1(50)FD/Gr. 2/75, dated 23-4-77 the undersigned hereby required Shri Bhootaram Patwari by payment to him three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months previous notice, to retire from the service on the receipt of this order by him.
A.P.O. of the amount of Rs. 1620/- in respect of three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months previous notice is enclosed.
Encl. D.D. No. A.O. 587669 Dated 31-7-78.
sd/- Collector, Jalore"Having read to the order of compulsory retirement, it cannot be said that the appointing authority had not taken the decision of its own or that the appointing authority has not applied its mind or that the Coll
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.