U R RANGASAMY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant had filed the writ petition for quashing the order of the Government of India, dated 23rd December, 1981, by which it had rejected the request of the appellant for permission to accept employment with M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited, Coimbatore, within two years of his retirement. The learned Judged quashed the order, as the order did not indicate the reason for the refusal. The learned Judge also directed the Government to dispose of the application of the appellant for permission by a reasoned order. It is against this part of the order, directing the Government to dispose of the application for permission filed by the appellant by a reasoned order, this writ appeal has been filed.

(2.) AT the time of his retirement on 31st March, 1981, the Appellant was an Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise in the office of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras. After his retirement on 18th September, 1981, M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited, Coimbatore, wanted to avail of his services for their units as an officer in charge of all excise matters. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) lays down that, if a member of the Central Services, Class I (as in the case of the appellant) wishes to accept any commercial employment before the expiry of two years from the date of his retirement, he shall obtain the previous section of the Government to such acceptance. This rule lays down the guidelines for allowing or refusing such permission. Thereafter on 23rd August, 1981, the appellant filed an application before the Secretary, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Government of India, New Delhi, for permission being granted to be appellant to join the service of M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited. That application has to conform to and mention the details required to be considered if not under the Rule 10 (3 ). On 3rd November, 1981, the Collector of Central Excise asked the appellant to submit a copy of the letter of appointment from M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited, and also to indicate the remuneration offered for the post, as that was not mentioned in the application, as required by the rules, Rule 10 (3) (f); this application was treated as incomplete one. On 18th November, 1981, the appellant reclosed a copy of the letter of appointment received from M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited, and also stated that he had been offered a sum of Rs. 2,000 per month as remuneration. On 23rd December, 1981, the Government of India by letter F. No. A/410 12/5/81-Ad. II rejected the request of the appellant for permission. That order was challenged by the appellant, as already stated, in the writ petition, on the ground that it did not state reasons for the rejection as required by Rule 10 (2) of the rules. The relevant portion of the Government letter reads as follows :

(3.) BY a counter-affidavit filed it was stated in paragraph 17 that the criteria as laid down in Rule 10 (3) was applied to the case of the appellant and that it was on that basis it was not found possible to grant permission to the appellant to engage in commercial employment. Certain other facts have also been stated in the counter-affidavit.