GAFOOR MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by Gafoor Mohammad is directed against an order of the District Excise Officer, Sri Ganganagar dated 14 -8 -75 for his compulsory retirement under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 on his completion of 25 years of qualifying service as Moharrir in the office of the District Excise Officer, Sri Ganganagar.

(2.) THOUGH the petitioner had challenged the legality and validity of Sub -rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules on the grounds that the sub -rule violates Articles 14, 16. and 311 of the Constitution, their validity is beyond question. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Tarasingh v. State of Rajasthan : [1975]3SCR1002 have held Rule 244(2) to be valid. That being so, the challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 244(2) does not survive.

(3.) THE decision of Kansingh J. in Sita Ram Joshi's case, supra, is distinguishable. There, the learned Judge was faced With a situation where the appointing authority had not applied its mind. In the present cases the respondents have controverter the fact and filed an affidavit of the District Excise Officer stating that he had independently come to the conclusion that the retention of the petitioner was not in the public interest. There is no reason not to act on the affidavit. In somewhat similar circumstances, D.P. Gupta J in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2527 of 1974 Manmal v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. decided on 30. 9.1975, held that Where the appointing authority Independently applies his mind to the question of compulsory retirement of a public servant under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be held to be invalid. In that connection, the learned Judge observed: I am of the view that the in the face of the affidavit filed by the Appointing Authority himself in the present case, it could not be presumed merely because the order Ex 4 was in the prescribed form or the fact relating to the application of mind was not specifically mentioned, therein, that the Appointing Authority did not apply its independent mind to the question of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the Appointing Authority to the effect that he applied his mind to the proposal received from the Screening Committee and passed the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner after careful consideration of the matter. I am in respectful agreement with the observation of the learned Judge. As in Manmal's case, supra, learned Government Advocate placed before me the service record of the petitioner. On a perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the order of compulsory retirement was not unjustified. The order of retirement passed by the District Excise Officer was not without any justification. There was material on the basis of which the District Excise Officer could have formed the requisite opinion under the Rule 241(2). That be so, the order of retirement cannot be set aside as laid down by then Lordships in Tarasingh's case, supra.