STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. S O KOHALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Appeal arises from the order of the learned Single Judge dated March 28, 1984 whereby the respondent's writ petition was allowed and the order of termination of his service was set aside. It was further directed that he will be entitled to all the benefits etc. as if his service has never been terminated.

(2.) WE may notice the brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal. The respondent was appointed as Excise Inrpector Gr. II on April 28, 1960 on temporary basis in accordance with the Rajasthan Excise Sub -ordinate Service Rules, 1960. He was confirmed on the said post in the year 1969 but subsequently, the confirmation order was withdrawn on November 13, 1973. Thereafter, the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (General Branch) Rules, 1974 came into force with, effect from May 30, 1974 and in accordance with the Rule 5(iii) a, Screening Committee was constituted for adjudging the suitability of the persons appointed on Ad hoc/temporary basis before January 1, 1972. Some departmental enquiry was pending against the respondent which was finalised and thereafter the respondent's services were terminated with effect from March 31, 1976. Aggrieved against the order of the termination, the petitioner filed the writ petition on number of grounds. The learned Single Judge set aside the order of his termination on the ground that the respondent was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before adjudging his suitability. Reliance was placed by the learned Single Julge on a decision of this Court in Yaswant Kumar v. State of Rajasthan 1980 WLN (UC) 114.

(3.) ABOVE observations have been made after taking into consideration from the law laid down in Mohd. Rashid Ahmed's case (supra) Thus, the principal controversy, which arises for determination is as to whether the respondent should have been given an opportunity of hearing by the Screening Committee before being adjudged unsuitable So far as this Court is concerned, the point in our opinion ceases to be res integra, as the two Division Benches of this Court has consistently taken the view that an opportunity of hearing should be afforded by the Screening Committee before a Government Servant is adjudged and found unsuitable Both the cases were the cases arising under the aforesaid rules relating to the Excise Inspector Gr. II. The case in hand is also a case of obsorption in service under 1974 Rules p be screened by the same Screening Committee under Rule 6(111).