MAN 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. 74. The petitioner, dissatisfied by that order, preferred 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, Jodhpur, which was rejected as not being entertain-able. The petitioner has now invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the orders Ex. p. 13 and p. 15. The averments 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 Sec. 9 of the Opium Act had been instituted against him. In that case he was convicted and sentenced 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 die 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 Profation of Offenders Act and as such there was no impediment in his reinstatement. The petitioner filed the application Ex. P. 10 before the Tehsildar, Jodhpur, for his reinstatement. The Tehsildar forwarded this 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. Jt 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 Art. 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 the 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 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.) MR. Munshi has referred to a number of authorities on the point that the intention of Art. 311 (1) of the Constitution of India is that a civil servant cannot be removed from service by an authority subordinate to that appointing him.