RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , Ram Singh a Shutar Sawar, appointed in the year 1955, was removed from services by the Tehsildar, Jodhpur, by the order Ex P.13 dated 5.8.75. The petitioner, dissatisfied by that order, prepared an appeal before the S.D.M., Jodhpur. The appeal was rejected by the order dated 21.2.75. Thereafter he filed a review application before the Collector, Jodbpur, which was rejected as not being entertainable. The petitioner had now invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the orders Ex. P.13 and P.15. The avernments are that he was appointed vide Ex. 1 on 21.2.1955 by the Collector, Jodhpur, as Shutar Sawar (Camel Sawar) A criminal case for identifying a wrong person at the instance of another employee of the department in connection with a Taccavi loan of Rs. 250/ - was instituted against him. Because of that case he was suspended vide order Ex. 2 on 15th June, 1965. He was acquitted in that case but was not reinstated because another criminal case under Section 5 of the Opium Act had been instituted against him. In that case he was convicted and contenced by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. When; the matter came in revision before this court, the petition was partly allowed and he was given benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act by the order dated 7.7.72, Ex. P.8. He made a request for his reinstatement on the ground that he had been given benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act and as such there was no impedinent in his reinstatement. The petitioner filed the application Ex. P. 10 before the Tehsildar, Jodhpur, for his reinstatement. The Tehsildar forwarded the application to the Collector and the Collector in his turn referred the matter to the State Government. The reply sent by the Government to the Collector is Ex. P.11. It is mentioned therein that the reinstatement or removal of the petitioner would depend upon the discretion of the disciplinary authority. The Tehsildar, Jodhpur, issued notice Ex. P.12 under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India to the petitioner. The petitioner filed the reply to that notice which is Ex. P.20. The Tehsildar, Jodhpur, by the impugned order Ex. P.13, ordered the removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner has assailed that order as well as the appellate order on a number of grounds.

(2.) AT that time of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly stressed the ground that the order of removal passed by the Tehsildar was invalid as being in contravention to the provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner was appointed by Collector, Jodhpur, an authority definitely higher to the Tehsildar and therefore, the order of removal passed by the Tehsildar was erroneous.

(3.) THE first point for consideration in the matter, therefore, would be as to who had appointed the petitioner. The petitioner has come with a specific case that he was appointed by the Collector. In this concern reliance has been placed on Ex. 1 dated 3.2.55. This is the information sent by the Tehsildar, Shergarh to the Collector, Jodhpur, regarding the joining of service of the petitioner and two others viz. Khaju Khan and Bhanwar Singh This letter has been addressed to the Collector, Jodhpur, and with regard to the reference, it states as 'Your No. Esst. A/811 dt. 21.1.55 and 1039 Dt. 29.1.53'. The subject mentioned is Appointment of Camel Sawar in Jagir'.