DEO NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Deo Narayan has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on July 11, 1974 for quashing the order Ex. 3 dated March 11, 1974 of his compulsory retirement and has also prayed for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE relevant facts may be noticed: The District and Sessions Judge, Pali, by his order (Ex. 3) dated March 11, 1974, under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules (for short 'the Rules' herein) passed the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner as the petitioner had completed 25 years of qualifying service A bank draft of Rs. 1740/ - being three months, pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice was also sent along with the order. It has been stated by the petitioner that his service record was quite clean except for the fact that by order doted November 25, 1947, a fine of Rs 5/ - was imposed by the Chief Justice, Chief Court, Jodhpur on the grounds that his work was found 'to be very unsatisfactory' and that 'he was very careless and negligence in discharge of his duties.' A represantation was submitted by him in this connection. On this representation, recommendation was made by the then Registrar of the erstwhile Chief Court of Jodhpur that the case of the petitioner is reported to be better than B. Jankidas in the audit note, and, therefore, he may be temporarily promoted. The petitioner received promotion order on September 21, 1949. Thereafter, it appears that Shri Roshanlal Mehta, the Reporting Officer (District Judge) made some adverse entries in the confidential report relating to the year 1964. The material portion of the adverse entries in Ex. 4, is as follows: General remarks (including a statement on integrity and reliability and a note of special qualifications not included above) No substantive complaint about his integrity, but I do not find him a reliable official Section II - Degree of fitness for promotion (Delete all but one of the following: 'not yet qualified. Remarks: His work was not found satisfactory. He is intriguing and un -reliable official. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid entries were never communicated to him and he came to know about them only when he saw the record at the time when he was denied regular promotion to the post of Munsarim. Despite these adverse entries in the Confidential Report, relating to the year 1964, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Reader. The petitioner has further stated that in the year 1964, a Committee was constituted to examine the record of persons in the Pali Judgeship for the purpose of seeing whether any one of them deserves to be retired in terms of Rule 244 of the Rules, but he was not compulsorily retired.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the order Ex. 3 of compulsory retirement on the ground that the order of compulsory retirement is bad, for, his efficiency has not been impaired, i. e. there has not been any deterioration of his efficiency. It was also stated by the petitioner that a Committee consisting of Shri Ratanlal Barmera, District Judge, Pali, Shri O.P. Jain, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sirchi and Shri Radhey Shyam, Civil Judge, Pali was constituted for scrutinising the cases of the persons, who were to be compulsorily retired. It was alleged that the order of the retirement was made malafide as Shri Ratanlal Barmera, th(sic) then District Judge was prejudiced against him. A reply has been filed on behalf of the non -petitioners contesting the writ petition on various grounds. If was stated that the entire record of the petitioner was taken into consideration and after its evaluation, it was found that the petitioner's efficiency has been impaired and, therefore, be was retired compulsorily under Rule 244 (2) of the Rules in the pubic interest. It was also pleaded that the petitioner had known the adverse entries and as such he could have made a representation against the same. Non -communication of the entries is only fortuitous. The allegations against Shri Ratanlal Barmera were denied. In support of the reply, affidavits of Shri Nag Raj Mehta, the then Civil Judge -cum -Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali Shri Ratanlal Barmera, the then District and Sessions Judge, Pali and Shri Radhey Shyam, the then Judge, Small Causes Court, were filed. The reply was accompanied by Exs. 1 to 3. Ex. 3 is the letter written by petitioner to the District and Sessions Judge, Pali through the Munsif -Magistrate, Pali, in reply to the Office Order Nos. 32 and 33 dated March 4, 1968 relating to the petitioner's promotion of the post of Assistant and posting in District Court, Pali. In this letter the petitioner's declined to accept the promotion offered to him. It is necessary to refer to the following portion of the letter, on which reliance was placed by the learned Government Advocate. I have been suffering from Low Blood Pressure and eyes cataract for the last nearly 4 years and therefore, find myself unable to shoulder the higher responsibilities and duties of the post of an Assistant, more so when it does not mean any appreciable financial advantage to me. Looking to the duties and functions of an assistant in the District Court, Pali, where 4 Sections have been put under my supervision, I will be required to strain myself much more than I am required to strain myself presently. This would mean an adverse effect on my health, in view of the Low Blood Pressure from which I have already been suffering. With such adverse effect, I will inevitably be required to incure an additional expenditure for necessary treatment which would neutralize the financial advantage, which I may have as an Assistant. Rule 244(2) of the Rules is as under: