Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 347 (RAJ)

Ram Lal Tandi v. State of Rajasthan

2011-02-15

GOVIND MATHUR

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition for writ is preferred to question validity, correctness and propriety of the order dated 19.6.2000 passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur placing the petitioner under retirement at a pre-mature stage, while exercising powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996' hereinafter). 2. The petitioner entered in the services of respondents on 3.5.1984 being appointed as Ranger Gr.I. By the order impugned dated 19.6.2000, the appointing authority retired the petitioner in public interest as per the provisions of Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996, the appointing authority should have recorded its satisfaction in the official records regarding indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of official duties or about loosing utility by the petitioner and that warranted his retirement in public interest. In view of the argument aforesaid, this Court on 19.10.2005 directed the respondents to produce the minutes of reviewing/screening committee and its recommendations before the Court. Accordingly, the same are made available by the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. From perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the screening committee, it reveals that it acted as per instructions prescribed under circular Annex.-2 dated 21.4.2000. The circular aforesaid is issued by the Department of Personnel (A-1/ACR cell) of the Government of Rajasthan, prescribing guidelines relating to placement of a Government servant under compulsory retirement, as per provisions of Rules 53(1) of the Rules of 1996. As per the circular aforesaid, at the first instance, the appointing authority is required to prepare a list of persons, who would be completing 15 years of qualifying service or who would be attaining the age of 50 years. Such list is required to contain name of officer, his designation, department to which he belongs, date of birth, date of commencement of qualifying service, date of completion of 15 year's qualifying service, date of superannuation, date of attaining 50 years of age and other details pertaining to the service career of the employee. The list so prepared is required to be placed before the screening committee along with dossier of Annual Performance Appraisal Report. The list so prepared is required to be placed before the screening committee along with dossier of Annual Performance Appraisal Report. The screening committee is required to examine the record advanced to it and on basis of that, it is required to submits its recommendations. The appointing authority is then require to issue necessary order in Model Form prescribed with the circular itself. 5. The case of the petitioner was accordingly placed before the screening committee that met on 7.6.2000. The screening committee at the first instance considered names of 27 persons and did not visualised any public interest that may warrant their retirement from service at pre-mature stage. The committee then referred names of four persons, who were found fit to be retired from service. The sole recommendation of the committee reads as follow : " iqujkoyksdu i'pkr~ lfefr us fuEukafdr {ks=h; izFke ,oa {ksf=; f}rh; dks jktLFkku lsok fu;e 244 ( 2 ) rFkk jktLFkku flfoy lsok isa'ku fu;e] 1996 ds fu;e 53 ( 1 ) ds vUrxZr vfuok;Z lsok fuo'fRr fd;s tkus gsrq mi;qZDr ik;k& 1- Jh jkeyky rkaMh iq= Jh Hkcwr jke {ks=h; izFke 2- Jh feJhey iq= Jh tsBkjke {ks=h; f}rh; 3- Jh t;ukjk;.k xgyksr iq= Jh tljkt {ks=h; f}rh; 4- Jh fo'o fodkl iq= Jh nsodj.k {ks=h; f}rh; 6. From perusal of the minutes, it reveals that In the list prepared by the appointing authority the petitioner was shown with four informations - (1) Adverse remark pertaining to the integrity in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1992-1993; (2) A penalty of censure in the year 1993; (3) Absence from duties without getting sanctioned leave; and (4) Physical Incompetence (suffering from paralysis). On basis of the recommendations made by he screening committee, the appointing authority passed an order impugned dated 19.6.2000. 7. Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 empowers the appointing authority to retire a Government servant compulsorily on completion of 15 years qualifying service or attaining the age of 50 years. However to exercise the powers, the appointing authority is required to satisfy himself that the public interest demands for retirement at pre-mature stage. The opinion for pre-mature retirement is required to be formed by the appointing authority by careful and thorough examination of the record. 8. However to exercise the powers, the appointing authority is required to satisfy himself that the public interest demands for retirement at pre-mature stage. The opinion for pre-mature retirement is required to be formed by the appointing authority by careful and thorough examination of the record. 8. True it is, it is exclusive and subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority that may result into compulsory retirement of the Government servant in public interest, but such satisfaction must be based on adequate material to provide cradle to rest the decision that retirement at pre-mature stage is in public interest. Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 puts an embargo upon the appointing authority to satisfy himself that the Government servant has lost his utility on account of his indolence or doubtful integrity or Incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of official duties or has lost general utility required for services. Such satisfaction may not be required to be mentioned in the order passed and communicated to the Government servant, but that should certainly be noted In the records and a definite opinion should be there warranting exercise of the powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. 9. In the case in hand, as a matter of fact, the appointing authority, though has passed the order impugned Annex.-1, but had no occasion to record its own satisfaction as required under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. The appointing authority simply quoted the facts relating to service career of the petitioner and placed it before the screening committee constituted as per Government of Rajasthan circular dated 21.4.2000. The screening committee on basis of material provided by the authority made a recommendation for placing the petitioner under retirement at pre-mature stage and that recommendation was accepted and acted upon by appointing authority without recording its own satisfaction as required under the Rule. 10. The facts stated above clearly shows that the screening committee has abdicated the statuary powers of the appointing authority. The screening committee is a body to assist the appointing authority for reaching at a definite conclusion and to arrive at an objective satisfaction while considering a case as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, but is no manner, such committee can substitute the appointing authority. The screening committee is a body to assist the appointing authority for reaching at a definite conclusion and to arrive at an objective satisfaction while considering a case as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, but is no manner, such committee can substitute the appointing authority. The statutory duty of the appointing authority is required to be discharged by the appointing authority only and by none else, may that be a committee consisting of the officers of higher ranks. 11. As already stated earlier, in the present case no satisfaction as required under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 is arrived by the appointing authority, therefore, the order impugned is apparently bad. Suffice it to mention here that even the screening committee did not care to mention the reasons warranting recommendation for placement of the petitioner under compulsory retirement. The screening committee in most mechanical manner noted that the cases of the employees were considered and they deserve to be retired from service at pre-mature stage. Such kind of recommendation is not at all sufficient to form an opinion as required under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition for writ deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The order dated 19.6.2000 (annex.-1) passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur retiring the petitioner at pre-mature stage, while exercising powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 is declared illegal, therefore, the same is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******