SAMBHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia, the petitioner seeks to quash the order (Ex. 4) dated June 26, 1979 of the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan Jaipur (which will herenafter, for the sake of brevity, be referred to as 'the Tribunal' ).

(2.) A few facts, mentioned in the writ petition may be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as Ameen in a temporary capacity on December 18, 1950 vide order (Ex. 1 ). The service of the petitioner was counted from December 7, 1950 as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and the pension has been calculated on the basis of 22 1/2 years qualifying service. Copy of the statement of pension has been submitted and marked as Ex 2. Certain adverse entries were made from 1960 to 1973 which were communicated to him in 1974. He was dismissed from service on August 28, 1975. The dismissal continued upto March 24, 1977, when he was suspended and charge sheeted. Soon after exoneration from the charges, order (Ex 3) dated August 3, 1978 was passed by which he was compulsorily retired. The petitioner lodged an appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order (Ex 4) dated June 26, 1979. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the legality of the impugned order by which the order of compulsory retirement has been upheld.

(3.) THE third contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not completed 25 years of qualifying service as his service before attaining the age of 18 years could not be counted as qualifying service as per rule 177 (a) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. On the basis of Ex. 2 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that qualifying service for pension has been counted as 22 years 8 months 11 days and therefore, 25 years service cannot be counted for compulsory retirement. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the point was not taken before the Tribunal, as the petitioner came to know about the fact that in the pension case, his service has been counted from the date he attained 18 years of age, after the decision of the Tribunal. THE petitioner seeks to quash the order (Ex. 4) of the Tribunal. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Lahar Kunwar (10), that before a writ of certiorari could be issued, an error apparent on the face of the record must be shown to exist when the questions of jurisdiction or malafide are not involved. It was obseived as under: "obviously, there cannot be any error on the face of the record because this point was neither raised nor considered by the Board of Revenue and we do not have the benefit of examining the view of the Tribunal whose order is under attack. " Apart from this, according to rule 244 (2) the Government may. after giving three months previous notice in writing require a Government servant to retire from the service on the date on which he completes 25 years of qualifying service. According to r. 177 (a), except for compensation gratuity, a Government servant's service does not qualify till be has completed eighteen years of age. Sub-rule (3) thereof says that unless it be otherwise provided by special rule or contract, the service of every Government servant being begins when he takes charge of the office to which he is first appointed. In Ex. 2, the date of beginning of service is mentioned as December 7, 1950 and date of ending of service is mentioned as August 3, 1978. THE petitioner in para 3 of the writ petition has stated that his service was counted from December 7, 1950. Office order Ex. 1 dated December 18, 1950 shows that he was appointed from December 7, 1950. He was compulsorily retired from August 3, 1978. It is. therefore, clear that he has completed 25 years of qualifying service within the meaning of rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. 9. No other point was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. THE writ petition has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed summarily. .