C L PATHAK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order of the Government of the Rajasthan, Medical and Public Health Department No. F.1 (142) MPH/74/Gr II dated 17th October, 1975 marked Exibit 17 at page 92 of the Paper Book by which the petitioner, who was Professor of Physiology S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, was compulsorily retired from service on the date of receipt of the order by him after completion of twenty years service by payment of three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months previous notice.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that be was appointed by the Government of Rajasthan as Demonstrator in Physiology after passing MBBS on February 28, 1958 and by dint of his merit and high academic qualification's which he acquired later on he was promoted as Professor in Physiology on March 30, 1963 in RNT Medical College, Udaipur. He goes on to state that he was awarded merit pay by order dated April 30, 1966 marked Exibi1, under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Merit Pay) Rules, 1961. This merit pay continued for a period of five years upto April 30, 1971 and the period was further extended for five years, In this connection, it has also been stated by him that the merit pay was enhanced from Rs. 100/ - to Rs. 200/ - p.m., from June 11, 1973 under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Grant of Rewaid, Merit Awards and Merit Certificates) Rules, 1973. The petitioner has also made mention of an outstanding research work conducted by him in the subject of Physiology, Inspite of his merit and efficiency the petitioner's case is that for extraneous reasons and on account of bias against him certain adverse remarks were made against him in the Confidential Roll of 1966 67. He also admits that during the year 1967 -68 certain adverse remarks were recorded against him on report of Dr. P.D. Mathur. Principal of S.P. Medical College, Bikaner. Thus it is the admitted case of petitioner that a warning was given to him by order dated January 22, 1969 and a penalty of censure was also imposed upon him by order dated May 2, 1970. There is further no dispute that all efforts made by the petitioner to get the penalty of censure quashed proved fruitless. The petitioner's case, in brief is that he is a highly merited and efficient officer well versed in his Subject and the order of compulsory retirement has been passed against him without forming the requisite opinion and that the order is based on collateral and arbitrary grounds. The order has also been assailed on the ground that it has been passed malafide and on account of personal bias against him. In this connection it has also been pointed out that, Rule 241(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 as amended is bad inasmuch as it cannot apply to him retrospectively, as his appointment was made long before the Rule came into force The validity of the order has been attacked on the ground that the petitioner could not take the benefit of the earned leave. Lastly it was contended that the period of twenty years service of qualifying service is unreasonable and consequently the Rule is liable to be struck down.

(3.) IN Dr. N.M. Putta Bhatta v. The State of Mysore and Anr. : (1972)IILLJ191SC it was held that so long as the right is not qualified, the right of the Government to retire a Government servant compulsorily must be held to be absolute. The theory of the right being absolute was succinctly laid down by their Lordships in R.L. Butail v. Union of India : (1970)IILLJ514SC . Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha : (1970)IILLJ284SC while discussing the scope of fundamental Rule 56(j). The Court observed: The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the condition mentioned in the rules, one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority bonafide forms that opinion, the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before the Court. It is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed of the decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision.