KAPOORCHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against an order of the Collector, Alwar, dated the 29th July, 1959, by which the petitioner Kapoor Chand was compulsorily retired under rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called the Rules) which order was confirmed on appeal by the Commis. Ajmer and finally by the State Government.

(2.) THE material facts may shortly be stated as follows. THE petitioner was on employee of the covenanting State of Alwar as it then was and on the integration of that State into Rajasthan, he worked as a cashier (clerk) in Tehsil Alwar in 1951. It was found that there was some shortage of cash under his charge and further some other accusations were also raised against him which related to his service earlier in the Jagir Department where he continued to work up till the 14th July, 1950. THE petitioner was served with a charge-sheet. He denied the allegation made against him. THE Collector, Alwar, found that the petitioner was guilty of negligence only and directed his re-instatement by an order dated the 29th November, 1952 (Ex. 3), though he was allowed to draw only half of his pay during his period of suspension. THE case of the petitioner is that he had preferred an appeal against that order and that the same is still pending before the Commissioner. Curiously enough, it is not mentioned in the application as to when this appeal v as filed nor has a copy of the memorandum of appeal been placed on this record. In July, 1955, while the petitioner worked as Reader to the Naib Tehsildar, Lachhmangarh, he was again served with two charge-sheets (Exs. 4 and 5) dated the 12th July, 1955. THE first charge was that while the petitioner was working in the Jagir Department, he had failed to account for certain articles in the stores which were under his charge, and, therefore, he was guilty of misappropriating them. THE second charge was that while the petitioner was serving in the Jagir Department, he had failed to bring to the notice of the authorities concerned certain decrees in favour of Thikana Khohra with the result that the execution of those decrees had become barred by time and that the State, which had resumed that Jagir, had been put to loss. THE petitioner denied these charges. It appears that by his note dated the 10th July, 1958 (Ex. 8), the Additional Collector, Alwar, was of the opinion that the petitioner was guilty of having lost certain articles under him. He proposed that he should pay Rs. 114/1/- as the price of the articles not accounted for by him (vide charge 1) and further that he also allowed the decrees in favour of Thikana Khotra while it was under the Court of Wards to become barred by time (vide charge 2 ). In this note, reference was made to yet another complaint against the petitioner about his misbehaviour with the medical Officer Thanagazi, but no definite finding was given about this. Under these circumstances, the Additional Collector proposed that as the petitioner had completed 25 years' service, he be compulsorily retired. THE Collector approved the proposal vide his order dated the 29th July, 1958, which is assailed before us. This order reads as follows: - "office Order. An enquiry was held against Shri Kapoor Chand Jain L. D. C. Tehsil Thanagazi Ex-Ahalmad jagir, Alwar, in connection with the loss of Jagir stores and non execution of decrees of the court of wards. He was charge-sheeted and his explanation obtained. THE charges framed against him and explanation furnished by him in defence were gone through carefully and it is hereby ordered that Shri Kapoor Chand is responsible for both the faults. A sum of Rs. 114/1/-only being the cost of the stores lost by Shri Kapoor Chand is therefore, recoverable from him. His continuance in service is also not considered in the public interest. Sd/- Collector, Alwar. " It may be mentioned at this place that the Collector Alwar had by letter No. 930/ex. A/k (57)57 dated the 5th September, 1958 (Ex. 14) written to the Commissioner Ajmer that as a result of certain enquiries made in a series of complaints against the petitioner, his continuance in service was not in public interest and that as he had put in 26 years of service, it would be in his own interest if he was retired under rule 244 (2) of the Rules, and, therefore, he solicited necessary orders in that behalf. THE Commissioner, by his letter No, 1324/estt-l-l654 dated 27th November, 1938 (Ex. 15) apparently turned down this proposal saying that as there were a number of complaints against the petitioner, these should be properly inquired into and appropriate disciplinary action be taken against him. However, the order passed by the Collector dated the 29th July 1958, seems subsequently to have been taken as a final order against the petitioner by everyone concerned including the Commissioner and the former filed an appeal against it before the Commissioner. THE Commissioner dismissed this appeal by his order dated the 5th January, 1959 (Ex. 10 ). THE operative part of this order reads as follows: - "i find no reason to interfere with the orders of the Collector, Alwar, and hereby confirm that Shri Kapoor Chand be retired compulsorily underart. 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. ' Against this order, the petitioner went in appeal to the State Government which was also dismissed vide Ex. 11 dated the 3rd March, 1959. An intimation was then sent to the petitioner that the Government bad considered his appeal and it was satisfied that there were sufficient and valid grounds for his retirement under Rule 244 (2) of the Rules and consequently the order of the Commissioner, Ajmer, dated the 5th January, 1959, was affirmed. Hence the petitioner has filed the present writ application impugning the validity of the order of his compulsory retirement.

(3.) IT has been strenuously pressed, however, that the order which is impugned before us is not an order of compulsory retirement under rule 244 (2) simpliciter but carries a stigma with it inasmuch as it avowedly says that there were certain charges against the petitioner and that those charges stood proved. An order like this, it is contended, certainly carries a stigma with it and is definitely distinguishable from the case of Shyamlal before the Supreme Court or of Gangaram before our own Court. IT is further contended that by this very order of the Collector, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 114/1/- as the price of certain articles which were supposed to be in his charge but for which he had not properly accounted and that even if rule 16 (a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1950, did not in terms apply to that part of the order, he was entitled to a proper and adequate inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice before such a payment could be exacted from him.