Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 84
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sabina, Narendra Singh Dhaddha, JJ.
Government of Rajasthan and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ratan Prakash Darji and Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 254 of 2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1180 of 2013 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 258 of 2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3985 of 2012
Decided On : 28-01-2020
For the Appellant :Ganesh Parihar, Additional Advocate General and Rajesh Kumar Kuri
For the Respondent: M.C. Taylor, R.M. Bairwa and Vandana Chauhan
An order of compulsory retirement passed under Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, must be based on a proper assessment of the employee's service record and must not be mala fide or discriminatory.
Headnote:
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (PENSION) RULES, 1996 - RULE 53 - MALA FIDE - PUBLIC INTEREST - CORRUPTION - PENALTY - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1958 - RULE 16 - DELAY - LACHES - WRIT PETITION - LIMITATION - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ACT, 1973 - SECTION 10 - APPEAL - DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - BIAS - MALICE - NON-APPLICATION OF MIND - PERVERSE FINDINGS - EVIDENCE - WITNESSES - DOCUMENTS - AUDIT REPORT - ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS - COMMUNICATION - NOTICE PAY - ALLOWANCES - SERVICE RECORD - SCREENING COMMITTEE - OPINION - REASONS - QUALIFYING SERVICE - AGE - INDOLENCE - INTEGRITY - INCOMPETENCE - OFFICIAL DUTIES - SUFFICIENCY - APPOINTING AUTHORITY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - WRIT JURISDICTION - HIGH COURT - SCOPE - INTERFERENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Respondent, an Accountant with the appellant-State, was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. He had earlier been penalized with stoppage of two annual grade increments and forfeiture of salary for suspension period under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. He challenged both orders in separate writ petitions, which were allowed by the Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Single Judge found that the penalty order was passed with malice and non-application of mind due to bias and prejudice against the respondent, as he had raised his voice against rampant corruption in the department. The Single Judge also found that the order of compulsory retirement was mala fide and had been passed to victimize the respondent for the same reason.
Issues: 1. Whether the penalty order was passed with malice and non-application of mind due to bias and prejudice against the respondent? 2. Whether the order of compulsory retirement was mala fide and had been passed to victimize the respondent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Single Judge rightly found that the penalty order was passed with malice and non-application of mind due to bias and prejudice against the respondent, as he had raised his voice against rampant corruption in the department. The enquiry officer's findings were perverse and suffered from the vice of malice and non-application of mind on account of bias and prejudice against the respondent. 2. The Single Judge rightly found that the order of compulsory retirement was mala fide and had been passed to victimize the respondent for the same reason. The entire service record of the respondent was not made available to the Screening Committee at the time of recommendation of the respondent for compulsory retirement. The opinion of the Screening Committee that in public interest, respondent was liable to be compulsorily retired was not substantiated as contemplated under Rule 53 of the Rules.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the appellant-State were dismissed. However, the part of the impugned orders, whereby costs of Rs. 20,000/- were imposed on the appellant-State by the learned Single Judge, were set aside.
JUDGMENT :
1. Vide this judgment, above-mentioned two appeals would be disposed of.
2. Respondent joined as Accountant with the appellant-State on 01.11.1977. After his confirmation, respondent was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer vide order dated 08.10.1990. Order of compulsory retirement of the respondent was passed on 21.09.2000. Respondent challenged the said order before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). Appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.07.2009. Hence, respondent preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3985/2012 challenging order of his compulsory retirement.
3. Another order dated 31.12.1999 was passed against the respondent, whereby his two annual grade increments without cumulative effect were stopped and salary for suspension period was forfeited. In appeal, the appellate authority upheld the punishment order vide order dated 18.12.2002. Hence, respondent preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1180/2013.
4. Both the writ petitions filed by the respondent were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide orders dated 26.07.2016. Hence, present appeals by the appellant-State.
5. We have heard learned State counsel, learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through record available on the file carefully.
6. So far as the order dated 31.12.1999, whereby penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect and forfeiture of salary of suspension period passed by the appellants against the respondent is concerned, the argument raised by State counsel that the writ petition was filed after an inordinate delay of about eleven years is without any force. Order, whereby, two annual grade increments of the respondent were stopped without cumulative effect was passed on 31.12.1999 and appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the appellate authority on 18.12.2002. In the meantime, order dated 21.09.2000 was passed, whereby, respondent was compulsorily retired from service.
7. Appeal filed by the respondent challenging order dated 31.12.1999 was also to be heard on 23.09.2000. However, the said appeal was adjourned sine die. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that the said fact was evident from communication dated 11.09.2000 addressed to the respondent and the same was placed on record as Annexure-42 in Writ Petition No. 1180/2013. Thus, in view of the said factual background, learned Single Judge rightly held that the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments could not be dismissed on account of delay and latches.
8. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that from the material on record, respondent had been adjudged as an outstanding officer by Shri R.K. Singh, the successor Joint Director for the year 1996-97, whereas, Smt. Seema Shrivastava, the earlier Joint Director, had assessed the respondent as unsatisfactory in all the twenty columns of the Annual Confidential Reports. It has also been noticed that in a communication addressed by the successor Joint Director to the Director, it was pointed out that the action initiated against the respondent was uncalled and it was also pointed out that there was rampant corruption in the department. In this regard, reference was made by the learned Single Judge to part of the communication dated 19.02.1997 (Annexure-4 attached with Writ Petition No. 1180/2013). Affidavit executed by Shri R.K. Singh, Special Officer, Directorate of Treasury and Accounts Department, Rajasthan was also reproduced by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
9. It has been further noticed by the learned Single Judge that Smt. Seema Shrivastava had failed to respond and send her comments despite reminders during enquiry. Witnesses examined during enquiry proceedings admitted that there was rampant corruption in the Directorate. The audit report submitted by the audit party headed by the respondent was approved
