Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 117 (RAJ)

Baldev Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-14

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was working as Patwari with the Department of Revenue and posted at Anoopgarh. He was compulsorily retired by the State Government vide order dated 09.08.2000 (Annx.1). He preferred an appeal against this order before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur {herein after 'the Tribunal'}, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2001 (Annx.8). By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged both the aforementioned orders. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the State as well as the learned Tribunal have acted arbitrarily and illegally while passing the impugned orders inasmuch as his entire service record was satisfactory and in any event did not warrant his compulsory retirement. He further contended that one similarly situated person, namely Rajesh Ratan, who was also working with the Department of Revenue, had also been compulsorily retired on the same date i.e. 9.8.2000 and he also preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal, which also was decided on 25.10.2001 whereby he was directed to be reinstated. The service record of the petitioner in comparison with the record of Rajesh Ratan was, at least, comparable if not better and hence, different yard-stick could not have been applied to the case of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Dr Pratishtha Sinha, learned Additional Govt. Advocate submitted that the service record of the petitioner was such which justified passing of the order of compulsory retirement. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, perused the record. 5. I am conscious of the fact that the scope of judicial review and interference with an order of compulsory retirement is extremely limited. The interference is called for only where the action of the authority is arbitrary, mala fide or indicates non-application of mind or non-compliance with any statutory duty. 6. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondents indicates that in petitioner's ACR for the year 1979-80, it was mentioned that as far as land records and recovery is concerned, his performance was satisfactory but he has shown indifference towards recovery of loans of Panchayat Samities. The ACR for the year 1980-81 indicates that recovery was not cent-percent and he was indifferent towards outstanding recovery of loans from Panchayat Samities. In the ACR for the year 1981-82, it was recorded that the recovery was unsatisfactory. The ACR for the year 1980-81 indicates that recovery was not cent-percent and he was indifferent towards outstanding recovery of loans from Panchayat Samities. In the ACR for the year 1981-82, it was recorded that the recovery was unsatisfactory. It is also stated in the reply that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for making false, fake and illegal mutations, which resulted into orders dated 08.06.1990 and 30.5.1997 whereby 02 annual grade increments and 03 annual grade increments respectively were withheld with cumulative effect.Therefore, it is patent that the over all record of the petitioner was considered and there was enough material on record to enable the State authorities to pass order of his compulsory retirement. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that similarly situated person, namely Rajesh Ratan, has been reinstated by the Tribunal and hence petitioner should also have been reinstated, can not be accepted. Even assuming that some leniency has been shown in the case of Rajesh Ratan and he has not been compulsorily retired, it is not open to the petitioner to derive any benefit therefrom. 8. The case of the petitioner has to stand on its legs and he has to make out a case that his over-all record was not taken into account and there was no material before the competent authority to justify passing of the order of his compulsory retirement. The case of the petitioner has been examined independently and only if petitioner can make out a case that his service record was such which did not justify passing of the impugned order, this Court can interfere in the matter. 9. However, I have carefully perused the order passed by the learned Tribunal whereby Rajesh Ratan has been directed to be reinstated in service. The service record of Rajesh Ratan, as mentioned in the order of the learned Tribunal, shows that his one grade increment was withheld in the year 1976 while he was warned for absence from duty in the year 1984. Another increment was also withheld in the year 1999, which was restored by order of the Divisional Commissioner. There is only one adverse entry in the year 1993-94. As far as warning in the year 1984 is concerned, Rajesh Ratan is said to have met with an accident and hospitalized in a Government Hospital. Another increment was also withheld in the year 1999, which was restored by order of the Divisional Commissioner. There is only one adverse entry in the year 1993-94. As far as warning in the year 1984 is concerned, Rajesh Ratan is said to have met with an accident and hospitalized in a Government Hospital. He was subsequently also granted selection grades on completion of 9 & 18 years of service. The legality of this order has not been challenged, although it does appear that the Tribunal has been somewhat lenient towards Rajesh Ratan. Nevertheless, the order passed in the case of Rajesh Ratan does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to claim parity. 10. It is reiterated that the scope for interference in an order of compulsory retirement is extremely limited. I draw support from judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Babu Lal Jangir - (2013) 10 SCC 551 , wherein it has been held as under: "24. Having taken note of the correct principles which need to be applied, we can safely conclude that the order of the High Court based solely on the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra (1987) 2 SCC 188 was not correct. The High Court could not have set aside the order merely on the ground that service record pertaining to the period 1978-90 being old and stale could not be taken into consideration at all. As per the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that entire service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the Government servant needs to be eased out prematurely. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. What is to be examined is the "overall performance" on the basis of "entire service record" to come to the conclusion as to whether the concerned employee has become a deadwood and it is public interest to retire him compulsorily. What is to be examined is the "overall performance" on the basis of "entire service record" to come to the conclusion as to whether the concerned employee has become a deadwood and it is public interest to retire him compulsorily. The Authority must consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the Authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee "rendered himself a liability to the institution", there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review." .... ... ... "28. It hardly needs to be emphasised that the order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic. It is based on subjective satisfaction of the employer and a very limited scope of judicial review is available in such cases. Interference is permissible only on the ground of non application of mind, malafide, perverse, or arbitrary or if there is noncompliance of statutory duty by the statutory authority. Power to retire compulsorily, the Government servant in terms of service rule is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bonafide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest.(See: Posts and Telegraphs Board v. L.S.N. Murthy- AIR 1992 SC 1368 )". 11. Therefore, tested in the light of the aforementioned principles, the impugned order cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or illegal, warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******