PANNA LAL Vs. COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises in this writ petition is as to whether the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the post of a Lower Division Cleric in the office of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Hanumangarh, is invalid or is not in accordance with law. The petitioner originally entered the service in the erstwhile State of Bikaner in 1946, as a 'Thanedar' in the Customs Department. On the integration of the former State of Bikaner with other princely states to form the United State of Rajasthan, the petitioner was employed as a 'Moharir' in the Excise and Taxation Department. Subsequently, he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the same Department by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation Department The petitioner continued to hold the post of a Lower Division Clerk in the Commercial Taxes Department in the State of Rajasthan. The Screening Committee considered the case of the petitioner after the completion of 25 years' qualifying service and came to the conclusion that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired from government service. The report of the Screening Committee was forwarded to the Commercial Taxes Officer, who gave him a notice under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules on June 12, 1973 directing him to retire from Government service, from the date of the receipt of that order by him. A bank draft in respect of the amount of Rs. 801/- towards his pay and allowances for a period of three months in lieu of three months' previous notice, was also sent along with the order of compulsory retirement to the petitioner on June 12, 1973.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was not passed by the Appointing Authority of the petitioner and as it was not passed by the competent authority, the same was invalid and was of no effect. According to the learned counsel, the initial appointment of the petitioner as a 'Thanedar' was made by the Inspector General of Police of the former State of Bikaner. That may be so, but after the formation of the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner was posted as a 'Moharir' in the first instance in the Excise and Taxation Department and then he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the same Department by the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation. Thus in respect of the post on which the petitioner was employed, at the time of his compulsory retirement, the Appointing Authority was the Assistant Commissioner in the Excise and Taxation Department. Learned Deputy Government Advocate states that the post of Commercial Taxes Officer in the Commercial Taxes Department is equivalent to that of Assistant Commissioner in the former Excise and Taxation Department It is a well known fact that the Excise and Taxation Department in the State Government was bifurcated and the Excise and Taxation wings thereof were separated, The Taxation wing is now known as Commercial Taxes Department. As the post of Commercial Taxes Officer is equivalent to that of Assistant Commissioner in the former Excise and Taxation Department, it is not possible to hold that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was not passed by the Appointing Authority.

(3.) Another submission made by learned counsel is that the petitioner had an unblemished record of service and there is no reason for his compulsory retirement. The respondents have placed the service record of the petitioner before me and after a perusal of the same I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was given warnings on two occasions and his confidential reports did not speak very well of the service rendered by the petitioner. On several occasions he was awarded a 'C' certificate in his confidential reports and if the Screening Committee and the Appointing Authority, after a perusal of the service record of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the petitioner should not be retail.ed further in the service of the State Government, then I do not see any reason to come to a different conclusion, after looking into the service record of the petitioner.