Back
1970 Supreme(Raj) 7
Rajasthan High Court
Kan Singh, J.
Sitaram Joshi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 216 of 1966
Decided On : January 13, 1970
Tikaram Paliwal and S.M. Mehta, for Petitioner; Raj Narain, Additional Government Advocate, for Respondents
Headnote:Constitution of India, Art 311 Rajasthan Service Rules, R 244(2)—Delegation of power of Government to appointing authority—Appointing authority vested with full powers—Procedure laying down that on receipt of recommendation of scrutiny committee, appointing authority shall issue order accordingly—This part of procedure bad as appointing authority deprived of discretion.
There is no manner of doubt that the powers of compulsory retirement under R. 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules have to be exercised by the State Government or its delegate. This rule vesting a discretion, which is statutory, the powers thereunder have to be exercised reasonably with the purpose of ensuring security and efficiency in the public services. In the present case though in the extent of powers delegated it was mentioned that the procedure for the exercise of full powers vested in the appointing autho-rity is to be laid down by the Appointments Department in the case of ministerial staff of the Secretariat, the order for laying down the procedure being an executive order has to be passed within the framework of the order of delegation which order has been passed in exercise of the statutory powers of the Government. The executive order to be passed by the Appointments Department cannot be such as to go against the true intent and purpose of the order of delegation which was to vest the full powers of the Government under R 244(2) to the appointing authorities. The decision regarding compulsory retirement of a Government servant has to be that of the delegate namely, the appointing authority and of no other. The provision for laying down the procedure by the Appointments Department can only contemplate that the order to be issued can indicate the various steps in the process of decision making, but in the very nature of things it will not be open while laying down such a procedure to erode the rule or notification itself by virtually substituting one decision making authority, namely, the appointing authority by another decision making authority. What cannot be permitted to be done is what is indicated in the later part of the order that "on receipt of the recommendation of the Committee retirement order shall be issued immediately by the concerned appointing authority as per specimen enclosed." This part of the order takes away the discretion vested in the appointing authority as a delegate of the Government and clothes for all intents and purposes the scrutinising Committee with powers under R. 244(2). Reading of the order dated 13-1-64 leaves no room for doubt in my mind that the appointing authority after the stage of scrutiny is over is reduced to nothing more than a rubber stamping one. (Para 13)
^^jktLFkku ljdkj
fu;qfDr ¼[k½ foHkkxA
la[;k ,d 2¼11½ fu;qfDr ¼[k½ 5
t;iqj] fnukad 2 flrEcj] 1965
&% uksfVl %&
izsf"kfr&
Jh lhrkjke tkskh iq= Jh iwlkjke tkskh]
kh?kfyfid] vodkk lfpo]
jktLFkku kklu lfpoky;] t;iqjA
pwafd Jh lhrkjke tkskh] kks/kfyfid ds ;ksX;dkjh lsokdky 25 o"kZ iwjs gks x;s gS] vkSj pwafd jkT; ljdkj larq"V gS fd mDr jkT; deZpkjh dh rnqijkUr lsok dks lekIr fd;k tkuk lkoZtfud fgr esa gS]
vr,o] vc fuEugLrk{kj drkZ jktLFkku lsok fu;eksa ds fu;e 244¼2½ ds vUrxZr foRr foHkkx ds vknskkuqlkj ,d 1 ¼84½ ,Q-Mh-,- ¼:Yl½ 62 fnukad 13-12-63 ds tfj;s izR;k;ksftr kfDr;ksa ds vuqlj.k esa ,rn~}kjk mDr Jh lhrkjke tkskh dks muls ;g vis{kk djrs gq;s uksfVl nsrs gS fd os bl uksfVl dh rkehy mu ij gksus ds fnu ls rhu dyS.Mj ekl dh lekfIr ds fnu lsok ls fuozr gks tkos rFkk Jh lhrkjke tkskh dks mDr fnukad ls lsok ls vfuok;Zr% fu;qDr fd;s tkus dh vkKk nsrs gSA
gLrk{kj----------------------
¼,e-,l- lnkflou½
kklu mi lfpo**
The petitioner joined the service of the former Jodhpur State sometime in 1935 and on integration of the State with the United State of Rajasthan he came into the service of the new State. He claims that he had unblemished record of service, but unfortunately for him he came to incur the displeasure of Shri Mathura Dass Mathur, Planning Minister, State of Rajasthan. The petitioner attributes this to a news item appearing in a daily paper "Rashtradoot" to the effect that the petitioner had handled roughly and toughly Shri Jwaladas father of Shri Mathura Dass Mathur. Petitioner proceeds to say that inspite of his work being entirely satisfactory certain adverse entries came to be made against him and eventually by Document No. 9, reproduced above, he was retired from service. He is challenging this order on the ground: that the order though purporting to be made in the public interest was motivated by malice and was based on wholly extraneous and irrelevant considerations; the malice being the eminent influence that respondent No. 2 wields with the administrative machinery in the State Secretariat. The petitioner has also attacked the vires of rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. It is contended by him that when this rule is read with a circular dated 25-9-63, issued by the Special Secretary to the Government in the Appointments Department to all Heads of Departments, it would be clear that such a retirement would carry a stigma of inefficiency or lack of integrity in a Government servant and accordingly if the orders are passed without compliance with the procedure prescribed for imposition of penalties the rule was bad, It was further urged that the rule does not lay down any objective test by which the State may determine which of its employees can be made to retire compulsorily before attaining the prescribed age of superannuation In the circumstances it was contended that this rule was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
2. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondent. Respondent No.2 Shri Mathura Dass Mathur has also filed an affidavit denying the allegations made against him regarding his having exercised any influence with the officers concerned in compulsorily retiring the petitioner The State Government in its first reply took the stand that the Committee consisting of Special Secretary, Appointments Department, Deputy Secretary, Appointments(B) Department and Deputy Secretary, Appointments (A-2) Department, after thoroughly examining aboutl36 cases including that of the petitioner issued orders for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner along with one another on 30-8 65 It was added that the members of the Committee belonged to the Appointments Department and there was no concern whatsoever of the Planning Department Minister in the matter.
3. After the writ petition was a
