JUDGMENT 1. - The short question that arises in this writ petition is as to whether the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the post of a Lower Division Cleric in the office of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Hanumangarh, is invalid or is not in accordance with law. The petitioner originally entered the service in the erstwhile State of Bikaner in 1946, as a 'Thanedar' in the Customs Department. On the integration of the former State of Bikaner with other princely states to form the United State of Rajasthan, the petitioner was employed as a 'Moharir' in the Excise and Taxation Department. Subsequently, he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the same Department by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation Department The petitioner continued to hold the post of a Lower Division Clerk in the Commercial Taxes Department in the State of Rajasthan. The Screening Committee considered the case of the petitioner after the completion of 25 years' qualifying service and came to the conclusion that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired from Government service. The report of the Screening Committee was forwarded to the Commercial Taxes Officer, who gave him a notice under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules on June 12, 1973 directing him to retire from Government service, from the date of the receipt of that order by him. A bank draft in respect of the amount of Rs. 801/- towards his pay and allowances for a period of three months in lieu of three months' previous notice, was also sent along with the order of compulsory retirement to the petitioner on June 12, 1973. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was not passed by the Appointing Authority of the petitioner and as it was not passed by the competent authority, the same was invalid and was of no effect. According to the learned counsel, the initial appointment of the petitioner as a 'Thanedar' was made by the Inspector General of Police of the former State of Bikaner. According to the learned counsel, the initial appointment of the petitioner as a 'Thanedar' was made by the Inspector General of Police of the former State of Bikaner. That may be so, but after the formation of the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner was posted as a 'Moharir' in the first instance in the Excise and Taxation Department and then he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the same Department by the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation. Thus in respect of the post on which the petitioner was employed, at the time of his compulsory retirement, the Appointing Authority was the Assistant Commissioner in the Excise and Taxation Department. Learned Deputy Government Advocate states that the post of Commercial Taxes Officer in the Commercial Taxes Department is equivalent to that of Assistant Commissioner in the former Excise and Taxation Department It is a well known fact that the Excise and Taxation Department in the State Government was bifurcated and the Excise and Taxation wings thereof were separated, The Taxation wing is now known as Commercial Taxes Department. As the post of Commercial Taxes Officer is equivalent to that of Assistant Commissioner in the former Excise and Taxation Department, it is not possible to hold that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was not passed by the Appointing Authority. 3. Another submission made by learned counsel is that the petitioner had an unblemished record of service and there is no reason for his compulsory retirement. The respondents have placed the service record of the petitioner before me and after a perusal of the same I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was given warnings on two occasions and his confidential reports did not speak very well of the service rendered by the petitioner. On several occasions he was awarded a 'C' certificate in his confidential reports and if the Screening Committee and the Appointing Authority, after a perusal of the service record of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the petitioner should not be retail.ed further in the service of the State Government, then I do not see any reason to come to a different conclusion, after looking into the service record of the petitioner. 4. 4. The last contention of the learned counsel is that the Appointing Authority did not apply its mind to the matter and mechanically passed the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner after receiving the report of the Screening Committee. He invited my attention to the following words occurring in the order passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer on June 12, 1973 : "This is in compliance with Chairman/Collector, Ganganagar order No. F. 1.18(9)Estt/73/3647 dated 28-5 1973 " Learned counsel submits that an inference should be drawn from the aforesaid statement occurring in the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner that the Commercial Taxes Officer merely acted in pursuance of the order of the Collector, Ganganagar, who was the Chairman of the Screening Committee and that he did not apply his own mind to the facts of the case and he did not employ his independent mind to the service record of the petitioner. The argument advanced by the learned counsel appears to be based solely on a reading of the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner (Ex. P 1). But an affidavit has been filed in this court by Shri Nand Lal, Commercial Taxes Officer, who had passed the aforesaid order. In para 3 of his affidavit dated July 14, 1977, Shri Nandlal has stated that "after receipt of the report of the Screening Committee, I again independently examined the entire service record of Pannalal before passing the order of compulsory retirement." The aforesaid affidavit of the Appointing Authority is specific on the subject as to whether he employed his own mind to the facts of the case and he has clarified the situation about the application of his own mind independently by the Appointing Authority. It must be observed that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner (Ex. 1) is rather clumsily drafted and the words relied upon by the petitioner's learned counsel do give an impression that the Appointing Authority was acting in pursuance of the letter of the Collector, who was the Chairman of the Screening Committee. The record of the proceedings regarding the compulsory retirement of the petitioner have also been placed before me. It appears from a perusal thereof that the Commercial Taxes Officer, Shri Nandlal was himself a member of the Screening Committee along with the Collector, Sri Ganganagar. The record of the proceedings regarding the compulsory retirement of the petitioner have also been placed before me. It appears from a perusal thereof that the Commercial Taxes Officer, Shri Nandlal was himself a member of the Screening Committee along with the Collector, Sri Ganganagar. Both the aforesaid officers at their meeting held on May 28, 1973 came to the conclusion that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired in public interest. On that day, a copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Screening Committee was forwarded by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, who was the Chairman of the aforesaid Committee to the Commercial Taxes Officer, Hanumangarh. The fact that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was passed almost two weeks after the copy of the aforesaid minutes were sent to the Commercial Taxes Officer, Hanumangarh, also support his statement on oath that he independently applied his own mind, after the receipt of the copy of the proceedings of the Screening Committee. In face of the affidavit of Shri Nand Lal, the then Commercial Taxes Officer, Hanumangarh dated April 14, 1977 and after taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, it is not possible to hold that the Commercial Taxes Officer had mechanically passed the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner without any application of his own mind It is not a case where immediately after receiving the report of the Screening Committee, the Appointing Authority passed the order of compulsory retirement in pursuance thereof. But in the instant case, the concerned authority has taken almost two weeks time and appears to have considered the matter and has passed the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner after a consideration of the service record learned counsel referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sisir Kumar v. Commissioner Presidency Division & others, 1976 (2) SLR 271 , in support of his contention. In that case, the Review Committee considered the question of compulsory retirement of the Government servant concerned and in the affidavit filed by the respondents before the Calcutta High Court it was stated that the case of the Government servant concerned was considered by the Review Committee and "as per" the decision of the majority of the members of the Review Committee, the competent authority issued the notice of compulsory retirement in public interest. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made in the affidavit in opposition, an argument was presented before his Lordships of the Calcutta High Court that the competent authority did not apply its mind and passed the order of compulsory retirement only "as per" the recommendations of the majority of the members of the Review Committee. However, the learned Judge, who decided Sisir Kumar's case, after perusing the record of the proceedings which were presented before him, came to the conclusion that the competent authority has applied its independent mind to the question of compulsory retirement of the concerned official and was satisfied that it was in public interest to retire the Government servant concerned from service. Learned Judge observed in the aforesaid case, - "The statements made in paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition referred to above cannot, in ray opinion, be interpreted to mean that the respondent No. 1 did not form any independent opinion as to the retirement of the petitioner. In any event, the respondent No. 1 having actually formed an independent opinion upon a consideration of the majority view of the Review Committee, as recorded by him in the said order dated August 6,1974, the statement s made in paragraph 12 have no significance." 5. It must also be observed that the order of compulsory retirement is not passed by way of punishment. No penalty is imposed upon the petitioner nor any stigma is attached to it. It does not even affect the benefits earned by the petitioner. It is usual to pass an order of compulsory retirement in the case of an employee, when the Appointing Authority is satisfied that his efficiency is impaired but against whom it is not considered desirable to make a formal charge of inefficiency or in the case of a person who appears to be no longer fully efficient, but not to such an extent so as to retire him on compassionate pension. It has been made clear in the notes appended to sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Moreover, it has also been made clear in those notes that compulsory retirement cannot be used as a financial weapon and it is only to be employed in the case of Government servants who are considered unsuitable for further retention in service. 6. Moreover, it has also been made clear in those notes that compulsory retirement cannot be used as a financial weapon and it is only to be employed in the case of Government servants who are considered unsuitable for further retention in service. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to find any fault with the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner The writ petition consequently has no force and is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.Petition dismissed. *******