BHAGWAN DAS RAJAK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement dated 16.8.1991 (Annex. 8) passed under Sub -rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules of 1951).

(2.) THE petitioner was lastly posted as District Extension Officer and was in the employment of Indra Gandhi Canal Project, Command Area Development at Suratgrah. Prior to this he was posted as District Agriculture Officer, Agriculture Department, Government of Rajasthan, Sawai Madhopur. While the petitioner was posted at Sawai Madhopur he was directly under the supervision of respondent No. 2 Sardar Jaspal Singh the then Deputy Director, Agriculture (Extension), Sawai Madhopur (Since retired). It is alleged that Sardar Jaspal Singh was not happy with the petitioner on account of various reason. Therefore, the petitioner apprehended that he will spoil his confidential reports and, therefore, he informed the Director of Agriculture Shri Rajiv Maharshi to this effect. He made a representation on 11.3.1938. It is alleged that the petitioner filed a first information report against Sardar Jaspal Singh for using abusive language and assault under Section 323 I.P.C. But the matter did not proceed further. It is alleged that the petitioner's apprehension came true when he was conveyed adverse Annual Confidential Reports for the year 1987 -88 by the communication dated 19.7.1990. The petitioner filed a representation and appended a large number of documents in support thereof. But the same was rejected on 6.6.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with an order of compulsory retirement dated 16.7.1991 on 17.7.1991. Therefore, he has filed the present writ petition challenging the same. It is alleged that the petitioner was earlier superseded for the post of Deputy Director, Agriculture and he filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The State took the position that the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee for the petitioner have been put in a sealed cover because an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was pending for the incident of 1984 -85 and 1985 -86 when the petitioner was posted as District Agriculture Officer, Bundi. A second departmental enquiry was also pending against the petitioner for the incident of 1983 -84 It is alleged that the respondent State instead of completing these enquiries had reported to the short method of retiring the petitioner compulsorily. This, according to the petitioner, is not correct. In the alternative, it is submitted that the record of the petitioner is not adverse so as to retire the petitioner compulsorily. It is submitted that so far as the adverse remarks made for the year 1986 -87 are concerned, they were made out of malice of by Sardar Jaspal Singh and they should not be taken into consideration. Learned Counsel in support of his submission has invited my attention to Union of India and Ors. v. Shaik Ali : AIR1990SC450 and State of Rajasthan v. Narendra Hal 1981 WLN (UC) 465.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. I also summoned the original record of the petitioner as well as the recommendations of the Committee for retiring the petitioner compulsorily. After having gone through the whole record I am satisfied that the compulsory retirement of the petitioner cannot be said to be bad nor does it suffer from any invalidity. The record of the petitioner from 1978 -79 and onwards by and large is not satisfactory as detailed above. The contention of the petitioner that he was promoted to the higher post, therefore, his earlier adverse record of 1978 -79 and 1979 -80 stood washed off cannot be said to be correct. As a matter of fact, it is not the rule of thumb that every adverse record prior to promotion cannot be looked into. The authorities have to make up their mind to find out as to whether the officer has become a dead wood or not. Normally the instructions are that they should not travel beyond 7 years but apart from that the record of the petitioner of recent time i.e. 1983 -84, 1984 -85, 1985 -86 and 1987 -88 was also not satisfactory. Simply to allege that the petitioner's relation with his immediate superior i.e. Sardar Jaspal Singh was not very happy and he apprehended that he is likely to give adverse remarks that cannot be decisive of the whole matter. The immediate superior has made the remarks and they were examined by the Director and he found that the they were not unwarranted and he has simply levelled the allegations against the immediate superior but that will not washed out the adverse remarks. It is some how a device of a very clever officer that in order to ward off the adverse remarks made against him he prepared a ground for the anticipated adverse action. Such subtle device of the petitioner cannot wash of his adverse remarks when the Director, Agriculture has himself examined the matter and found the same to be correct and that has been remained intact. Therefore, that can legitimately be taken into consideration. The fact that the record of the petitioner from 1978 onwards is not very satisfactory, therefore, if the authorities after examining the matter have found that the officer has lost his utility then this Court will not substitute its opinion.