RANDEV SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a Forest Ranger. He joined the Forest Department of the Sirmur State in the year, 1934 and when that State merged in the Himachal Pradesh Administration in 1948, the Petitioner became a member of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department. He was confirmed as a Forest Ranger in the year 1957. The Petitioner says that as he was suffering from bleeding piles, he applied to the Conservator of Forests on May 26, 1971, that he should be transferred to the Nahan Division either to perform range duty or on special duty because the journeys at high altitudes were proving injurious to his health. The Petitioner was 56 years old at that time. On July 20, 1971 the Conservator of Forests made an order retiring the Petitioner from service under Fundamental Rule 56(j). The Petitioner challenged the validity of that order by Civil Writ Petition No. 178 of 1971 and applied for an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order. On November 8, 1971, the interim relief prayed for was granted. The Petitioner resumed duty and thereafter on January 4, 1972 a fresh order retiring him from service was made under Fundamental Rule 56(j). By the latter order of retirement, the Conservator of Forests attempted to remove the shortcomings alleged in the earlier order of retirement. The earlier order notified merely that in pursuance of Fundamental Rule 56(j) the Petitioner stood retired from service upon the expiry of three months. The latter order was more detailed and explicit. It notified that in pursuance of Fundamental Rule 56(J) the Petitioner stood retired from service in the public interest upon the expiry of three months. It also stated that the Petitioner had complained about unfitness "due to bleeding piles, pyreia and weak eye -sight vide his application dated 25 -5 -1971, 9 -7 -1971, 10 -8 -1971, 11 -9 -1971 and 1 -11 -1971 accompanied by medical certificates dated 9 -7 -1971, 10 -8 -1971, 10 -9 -1971 and 26 -10 -1971". The Petitioner now challenges the order dated January 4, 1972.

(2.) The first contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that as the Petitioner was appointed Forest Ranger by the Chief Conservator of Forests who was the "Appointing Authority" under Notification No. Ft. 43 -203/49 of July 3, 1954, the order under Fundamental Rule 56(j) terminating his services could have been passed by that authority only and not by the Conservator of Forests who was an inferior authority. At one stage during the hearing, there was serious dispute whether the Petitioner was in fact appointed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, but ultimately the learned Advocate -General appearing for the Respondents admitted that that was so. The learned Advocate -General, however, contends that the Notification of 1952 no longer holds the field and that Notification No. A -88 -45/56 -II, dated January 30, 1962, as amended by Notification No. A -88 -45/56 -II, dated March 27, 1972, now indicates that for the category to which the Petitioner belongs the appointing authority is the Conservator of Forests. There has been much debate on the question whether the amended Notification of 1962 applies at all. Shri P.N. Nag, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, urges that the Notification can be applied only for the purpose of imposing penalties. The preamble to that Notification reads:

(3.) Shri Nag relies upon Rule 14(2)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which declares that the penalties specified in Rule 13 may be imposed by the authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the President, or where no such order has been made, by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf. He says that the Schedule brought in by the Notification of 1962 prescribes the "appointing authority" merely for the purpose of applying Rule 14(2)(b). Now the preamble to that Notification no doubt mentions that the Notification has been made under Rule 14(2)(6). But it also mentions that it has been made under Parts III and IV of the Schedule, and when we turn to Part III of the Schedule, we find that in respect of posts in Union territories, the "appointing authority" has been shown as the "head of office or such other authority as may be specified by the Administrator". Apparently, this entry in the Schedule recognises power in the Administrator to specify the authority who will function as the "appointing authority" in respect of Union territory posts. It appears that it is that power to which reference is made in the preamble to the Notification of 1962. If that conclusion is sound, then the inference must be that the Schedule set out in the Notification of 1962 specifies the "appointing authority" for the purpose of making appointments and not, as Shri Nag has contended, only for the purpose of applying Rule 14(2)(b) when imposing penalties. This is also clear from the fact that the Schedule in the Notification of 1962 designates the appellate authorities also, and that would have been wholly relevant if the Schedule was designed for the purpose of Rule 14(2)(b) alone. In my opinion, the contention of the learned Advocate -General must be accepted that the "appointing authority" in respect of Forest Rangers must now be discovered from the terms of the amended Notification dated March 27, 1962. Reading that Notification as amended, it is clear that the Conservator of Forests is the "appointing authority" in respect of employees of class III services and posts in the Forest Department who are posted in his office or circle. It is not disputed that the Petitioner falls in that category, and that the officer who issued the impugned order is the relevant Conservator of Forests.