Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2429 (RAJ)

Fateh Karan Mehru v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-12

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.- Under an order dated 12.09.2000, the Government of Rajasthan while exercising powers under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 placed the petitioner under retirement at premature stage in public interest. 2. By present petition the order aforesaid is questioned being arbitrary. According to the petitioner, there was no material available with the respondent State to form an opinion that warranted his premature retirement in public interest. 3. By an order dated 08.08.2005 a direction was given by this Court to the respondents to produce the record of the Screening Committee under the recommendation of which opinion was formed that retention of the petitioner was not in public interest. In pursuant thereto Shri R.P.S. Choudhary, learned Additional Advocate General has produced before the Court record of the Screening Committee which recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 4. The Screening Committee while making recommendation for premature retirement of the petitioner taken into consideration the following issues:-"(1) By order dated 03.08.1988 the minor punishment of stoppage of one grade annual increment was imposed upon the officer. .(2) Theofficer was placed under suspension under order dated 03.05.1988 but the same was revoked on 08.01.1990. No disciplinary proceeding was initiated for which the officer was placed under suspension by the order dated 03.05.1988. .(3) A minor punishment i.e., of stoppage of one grade annual increment was imposed upon the officer by order dated 04.03.1991 and the same was modified as the penalty of censure by the order dated 03.01.1995, however, that too was set aside by an order dated 12.06.1995. .(4) Under an order dated 25.01.1993 two annual grade increments with cumulative effect were stopped but that too was quashed under an order dated 011.1995. .(5) The annual performance appraisal report of the officer for the year 1985-86 was adverse. The officer was placed under suspension under an order dated 28.04.1999 and the same was confirmed by the Department of Personnel by an order dated 28.05.1999; and .(6) A criminal case was registered and challanged under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1980." 5. With regard to Issue No. 6, it is stated at Bar by Shri M. Mridul, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has not been challaned for any case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. With regard to Issue No. 6, it is stated at Bar by Shri M. Mridul, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has not been challaned for any case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent State also not disputed this fact. 6. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that in fact the petitioner suffered a minor punishment in the year 1988 and also suffered an adverse remark in his APAR for the year 1985-86. The Screening Committee while making recommendation for placing the petitioner under compulsory retirement had also taken into consideration certain punishments which were not in existence being set aside at appellate or at revisional stage. I also found from the record that the State Government on basis of the recommendation, made by the Screening Committee passed the order impugned dated 12.09.2000 without forming its own opinion as to whether retention of the petitioner in service was in public interest or not. 7. In precise, two questions are required to be adjudicated to determine validity of the order impugned, those are (1) WHETHER the Sate Government was equipped with material sufficient to form an opinion to the effect that retention of the petitioner in service was not in public interest; and (2) WHETHER the State Government which is appointing authority of the petitioner was not required to form its own opinion with regard to retention of the petitioner in service while exercising powers under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. 8. Heard the Counsel for the parties. 9. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent State was not equipped with sufficient material to form an opinion to the effect that the retention of the petitioner in service was not in public interest, as such the placement of the petitioner under retirement at premature stage is arbitrary. 10. Per contra, it is stated by learned Additional Advocate General that the bona fide opinion formed by the competent authority to place the petitioner under retirement is not required to be interfered by this Court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction. It is further contended that by the force of Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 the State have absolute power to compulsorily retire its employees in public interest. 11. It is further contended that by the force of Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 the State have absolute power to compulsorily retire its employees in public interest. 11. I am having no doubt about the power and right of the State to retire a Government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so, but this power and right is always required to be executed cautiously, fairly and without any arbitrariness. If an opinion is formed to retire a Government servant at premature stage without having sufficient material to form such opinion or such opinion is formed without proper consideration of the material available, then the action taken on basis of such opinion shall be nothing but an arbitrary exercise of powers. 12. It is true that it is for the appointing authority to satisfy himself as to whether the retention of the officer concerned is in public interest or not, but such satisfaction should always be objective and must be based on sufficient material to substantiate that continuation of an officer concerned in service shall adversely effect efficacy in service and interest of public at large. 13. As stated above, the Screening Committee while considering service record of the petitioner taken into consideration various events of the service career of the petitioner. The Screening Committee considered the fact that a minor punishment i.e., of stoppage of one grade annual increment was imposed upon the petitioner on 03.08.1988. The Screening Committee also taken into consideration the orders of punishment dated 04.03.1991 and 25.01.1993 which were ultimately quashed either at appellate or revisional stage. The Screening Committee also taken into consideration the facts with regard to placement of the petitioner under suspension in the year 1988 and in the year 1999. The suspension of the petitioner in the year 1988 was revoked in the year 1990, however, no disciplinary action then was taken against the petitioner. The Screening Committee beside the above also taken into consideration the adverse remark entered in the APAR of the petitioner for the year 1985-86 and a criminal case said to be registered and challanged against the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1980. With regard to criminal case referred above, it is the position admitted between the parties that the petitioner has not been challaned for any such case. With regard to criminal case referred above, it is the position admitted between the parties that the petitioner has not been challaned for any such case. The resultant position is that only adverse material against the petitioner was a minor punishment imposed upon him in the year 1988 and a adverse remark in APAR for the year 1985-86, on basis of this material the petitioner has been placed under compulsory retirement. 14. It is true that the petitioner faced certain disciplinary proceedings during his service career but at all the time except once he was exonerated from the charges. After exoneration from the charges alleged such material in normal course cannot be taken into consideration by the appointing authority for making an opinion that retention of the officer concerned is not in public interest. In the present case, the committee concerned was aware of the fact that except once the petitioner was exonerated from the charges either at appellate or revisional stage and this fact all the more improves case of the petitioner to say that the higher authorities, while considering his case did not find any force in charges for which he was tried. 15. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that in the present case there was no sufficient material available with the respondents to form an opinion that retention of the petitioner in service was not in public interest. 16. The next question as to whether the appointing authority was under obligation to accept the representation made by the Screening Committee ipsi dixit. From perusal of the record of the Screening Committee it appears that the committee in quite vague manner noted down certain events of the service career of the petitioner and made a recommendation for his premature retirement from service. The Screening Committee has nowhere considered as to how the retention of the petitioner was not in public interest. The appointing authority acted upon the recommendation made by the Screening Committee and passed the order impugned. The appointing authority, before passing the order impugned has not made its own opinion for placing the petitioner under retirement while exercising powers under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. The Screening Committee is nothing but a body assisting to appointing authority while deciding the case under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. The Screening Committee is nothing but a body assisting to appointing authority while deciding the case under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. The appointing authority on basis of factual considerations made by the Screening Committee is required to reach at a specific conclusion by forming its own opinion as to whether the retention of the officer convened in service is in public interest or not. In the present case the appointing authority failed to form its own opinion in this regard. The appointing authority simply acted upon the recommendations made by the Screening Committee the powers under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 which required to be exercised by the appointing authority and not by its assisting committee. In view of it the order impugned is also in violation of provisions of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The order impugned dated 12.09.2000 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 18. No order as to costs.