Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nand Ram vs State And Anr. (2024:Rj-Jd:309) on 3 January, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:309]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6125/2013
Nand Ram s/o Shri Bhagwana Ram, aged about 61 years, r/o
STR Nahar Ki Tail, New Mandi, Gharsana, District SriGanganagar,
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the District Collector,
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan
2. The Board of Revenue Rajasthan through its Registrar,
Ajmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr D.S. Sodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr I.S. Pareek
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (oral)
03/01/2024
1. Petitioner herein challenges an order dated 05.04.2013
passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appeal Tribunal, Jaipur, in
Appeal No.2826/2000. In this order, the Tribunal declined to
intervene against the decision dated 09.08.2000, rendered by the
District Collector, Sriganganagar, vide which petitioner was
compulsorily retired from service under Rule 53(1) of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1996. Subsequently, an
appeal filed against the order of the Collector was also dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was
appointed as a Patwari on 26.02.1979 at Patwar Mandal Lodha,
Tehsil & District Banswara. He was Transferred to the office of
Additional Collector, Area Development, North West Bakra,
[2024:RJ-JD:309] (2 of 5) [CW-6125/2013]
Hanumangarh Junction, the petitioner joined duty on 01.02.1981,
remaining there until 24.02.1983. Subsequently, he was posted at
various locations, receiving promotions and selection grades as
per entitlements.
2.1. The Government of Rajasthan enacted the Rajasthan Civil
Services (Pension) Rules 1996, effective from 01.09.1996. Rule 53
of these Rules addresses the compulsory retirement of a
government servant. In exercise of powers under rule 53(i), a
circular dated 21.04.2000 was issued by the Government of
Rajasthan, Department of Personnel, providing guidelines for the
process.
2.2. The Circular mandates that on April 1st of each year,
appointing authorities prepare a list of individuals completing 15
years of qualifying service or reaching the age of 50. The
screening committee, internal to the department, reviews the
cases of government servants, preparing a comprehensive brief
for consideration by the Review Committee. The circular
emphasizes the consideration of the entire service record,
including adverse remarks and positive appraisals, while deciding
on compulsory retirement.
2.3. The District Collector, Sriganganagar, formed an internal
screening committee as per the circular on 21.04.2000. This
committee, in its meeting on 04.07.2000, recommended the
compulsory retirement of the petitioner under rule 53(i) after
reviewing the service record, noting two major penalties imposed
on the petitioner in 1995 and 1998, and adverse entries in the
ACR for the year 1990-91.
[2024:RJ-JD:309] (3 of 5) [CW-6125/2013]
2.4. The petitioner received a notice on 18.01.1994 regarding
adverse entries in the ACR for the year 1990-91. Despite
submitting replies in 1995 and 1995, no decision has been
communicated regarding expunging the adverse remarks.
2.4. The order dated 15.06.1995 imposing a penalty was set aside
by the Court in SBCWP No.4004/2003. The petitioner filed Writ
Petition No.3260/2002 challenging the another punishment order
dated 22.07.1998, which is pending adjudication.
2.7. On 09.08.2000, the District Collector, Sriganganagar, ordered
the compulsory retirement of the petitioner after receiving the
internal screening committee's report, exercising powers under
rule 53(i) of the Rules of 1996.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, after hearing arguments from both
parties, I proceed to address the petitioner's contention.
4. Petitioner's counsel strongly argues that the impugned order,
mandating the petitioner's compulsory retirement, lacks any
application of mind. The learned counsel asserts that the
appointing authority failed to demonstrate independent
consideration or review of the petitioner's service record, a
requirement under rule 53 of the Rules of 1996.
5. The counsel relies on a judgment from a Single Bench of this
Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1691/1993: LRs of late Shri
Pukhraj Gehlot vs. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal,
Jodhpur and Others, decided on 01.03.2007, reported in 2007(2)
WLC (Raj) 510. The judgment emphasizes that the appointing
authority must form a definite opinion based on the entire service
record, recording reasons for the premature retirement of the
government servant.
[2024:RJ-JD:309] (4 of 5) [CW-6125/2013]
6. In response, the respondent argued that the Tribunal's
judgment on 05.04.2013 is just and proper and warrants no
interefrence.
7. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to address the
reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in
the case of LRs of Pukhraj Gehlot (supra). While agreeing with the
observations made therein, it is also crucial to consider that the
exclusive subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority should
be evaluated in the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
The cited judgment deals with a situation where the appointing
authority overruled the opinion of the screening and review
committees, ordering compulsory retirement despite their
favorable opinion.
8. In the present case, both the screening committee and the
reviewing authority applied their minds, concluding that the
petitioner is unfit to continue in service.
9. The affidavit filed by the respondent, to which no rejoinder
has been filed, indicates that the screening committee, consisting
of the SDO, Sriganganagar, and Accounts Officer, DRDA, along
with the petitioner, recommended cases of six others to the
reviewing committee. The reviewing committee, comprising the
District Collector and Additional District Collector (Administration),
Sriganganagar, made a decision to retire the petitioner after due
consideration.
10. If it were a case of the punishing authority disagreeing with
the screening and review committees, recording independent
reasons would be necessary. However, in this instance, both
[2024:RJ-JD:309] (5 of 5) [CW-6125/2013]
committees supported the decision, and therefore, detailed
reasons are not explicitly required.
11. No doubt, the impugned administrative order, under challenge
before the Tribunal, could have been more precisely worded to
confirm that the reviewing authority considered the screening
committee's report, but insisting on this detail seems overly
technical and may give undue advantage based on any
inadvertence by the competent authority.
12. As an upshot of my discussion, I find no grounds for
interference are made out.
13. The petition is dismissed.
(ARUN MONGA), J
73-MMA / Sumit
Whether fit for reporting: Yes/No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
