SITARAM JOSHI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Sitaram Joshi is challenging an order of his compulsory retirement under rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. For facility of reference I may read that order Document No. 9 dated 2-9-65: ******** The petitioner joined the service of the former Jodhpur State sometime in 1935 and on integration of the State with the United State of Rajasthan he came into the service of the new State. He claims that he had unblemished record of service, but unfortunately for him he came to incur the displeasure of Shri Mathura Dass Mathur, Planning Minister, State of Rajasthan. The petitioner attributes this to a news item appearing in a daily paper "rashtradoot" to the effect that the petitioner had handled roughly and toughly Shri Jwaladas father of Shri Mathura Dass Mathur. PETITIONER proceeds to say that inspite of his work being entirely satisfactory certain adverse entries came to be made against him and eventually by Document No. 9, reproduced above, he was retired from service. He is challenging this order on the ground: that the order though purporting to be made in the public interest was motivated by malice and was based on wholly extraneous and irrelevant considerations; the malice being the eminent influence that respondent No. 2 wields with the administrative machinery in the State Secretariat. The petitioner has also attacked the vires of rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. It is contended by him that when this rule is read with a circular dated 25-9-63, issued by the Special Secretary to the Government in the Appointments Department to all Heads of Departments, it would be clear that such a retirement would carry a stigma of inefficiency or lack of integrity in a Government servant and accordingly if the orders are passed without compliance with the procedure prescribed for imposition of penalties the rule was bad, It was further urged that the rule does not lay down any objective test by which the State may determine which of its employees can be made to retire compulsorily before attaining the prescribed age of superannuation In the circumstances it was contended that this rule was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE writ petition has been opposed by the respondent. Respondent No. 2 Shri Mathura Dass Mathur has also filed an affidavit denying the allegations made against him regarding his having exercised any influence with the officers concerned in compulsorily retiring the petitioner THE State Government in its first reply took the stand that the Committee consisting of Special Secretary, Appointments Department, Deputy Secretary, Appointments (B) Department and Deputy Secretary, Appointments (A-2) Department, after thoroughly examining aboutl36 cases including that of the petitioner issued orders for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner along with one another on 30-8 65 It was added that the members of the Committee belonged to the Appointments Department and there was no concern whatsoever of the Planning Department Minister in the matter.

(3.) THUS, to my mind, the outward form of document No. 9 was misleading in that the Government were shown to be the author thereof and the decision in the present case was really of the scrutinising body so-called screening committee as mentioned in the first reply of the Government and from the notes placed before me the appointing authority is not shown to have come to an independent conclusion after the recommendations of the scrutinising body were received and it just issued the order when the Special Secretary under whom the Deputy Secretary was working had asked him to issue such an order.