Bhoor Singh vs District Judge and Others

R.S Verma, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of Single Judge dated 8-5-1986 by which the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed.

The facts giving rise to this petition and the appeal lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner had put in 28 years of service under the District Judge, Jodbpur and at the relevant period was working as Reader to Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara. A Screening Committee was constituted by the District Judge, Jodbpur, to screen persons who bad completed 25 years of service and had outlived their utility so that such person may be retired in public interest. The Committee considered the case of the appellant along with the cases of some other employees and recommended the petitioner''s retirement under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The District Judge accepted the recommendation of the Screening Committee and passed order Anx. 7 on September 2, 1983 where by the appellant was compulsorily retired from service in accordance with the provisions of Rule 244(2) of the RSR. Formalities incidental to the passing of such order were complied with.

The appellant preferred an appeal on the administrative side against his compulsory retirement and his appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 23 5-1985 (Anx. 11). The said order was communicated to the appellant vide Anx.9.

Aggrieved the appellant filed the writ petition out of which the present appeal arises. It was averred that the appellant was retired by way of colourable execrcise of the powers of Rule 244(2) of the RSR. Certain allegations of malafides were made. It was averred that the appellant had proceeded on leave and was subjected to an action under Rule 86 of the R.S.R. and was given a notice in this regard The petitioner appellant replied to those notice vide written reply dated 8-5-1983 and submitted that he could not attend his duties on account of illness. It appears that no further proceedings were taken in connection with the notice Ex.3 and the petitioner-appellant was compulsoriiy retired as aforesaid.

Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. M.R. Singhvi submits that the appellant was compulsoriiy retired in colourable exercise of the powers under Rule 244(2) of the R.S R. He has submitted that the learned appellate authority found that the petitioner was discharging his duties efficiently and there was no adverse material against the petitioner-appellant but since the petitioner-appellant had been transferred from Pokaran to Phalodi and from Phalodi to Bilara and he remaied continuously absent for a long period extending almost for one year it went to support the conclusion arrived it by the Screening Committee that the appellant was either not anxious of remiaing service or he was not fit for being continue in service. He submits that this very recital goes to show that the order of compulsory retirement was passed really as a measure of punishment and the petitioner-appellant was not retired because his efficiency had been impaired to the extent that he was unfit to be continued in service in public interest. He submits that though the order of compulsory retirement in itself it innocuous, yet this court should price the veil and should taken into consideration the real facts which impelled the District Judge to pass the order of compulsory retirement. In this connection he submits that this Court should look into the report of the Screening Committee which screened the case of the petitioner-appellant. In support of his submission he has relied upon Hardeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1988(1) All India Service Law Journal 206.

Learned Counsel for the respondents supports the order of the leaned Single Judge as also the orders passed by the District Judge as also the Appellate Authority and submits that the person who had remained absent from duty for very long period was really unfit to be retained or continued in service. He, therefore, submits that the order for compulsory retirement passed by the District Judge and upheld by the learned appellate authority was just and proper and consequently this court should not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant''s writ petition.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and have also perused the record. The learned Dy. G A. has produced for our perusal the report of the Screening Committee. We may quote the same in extenso:

Jh Hkwjflag orZeku jhMj] eqaflQ eftLV�sV fcykM+k ds ekeys ij fopkj fd; x;k A

O;fDrxr i=koyh] lsok iqfLrdk o /kkfeZd xksiuh; izfrosnu dk voyksdu fd;k x;k vkSj mldk bekunkjh ,oa dk;Z djus dh {kerk ds ckjs es vf/kdkjh;ks ds lkFk fopkj foe''kZ fd;k x;k A

bl deZpkjh ds fo:) rLdjh djus dh f''kdk;r gksus ij iksdj.k ls fj&LFkkukUrj.k QykSnh fd;k ogka ij og dsoy fn-16&8&82 dsk ,d fnu mifLFkr gqvk rRi''pkr LosPNkiwoZd vuqifLFkr jgk A ftldk fu;e 86 vkj-,l-,l- dk uksfVl fn;k x;k ijUrq fQj Hkh mifLFkr ugh gqvk blds i''pkr bldk LFkkukUrj.k QykSnh ls fcykM+k ,e-ts-,e- es vDVwcj 1982 es fd;k Aog dsoy dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ds fy, mifLFkr gqvk blds i''pkr fn-24&1&83 ls rks fcYdqy gh vuqifLFkr gS A

deZpkjh ds mijksDr d`R;ks ls ,slk fl) gksrk gS fd Jh Hkwjflag jktdh; lsok es jgus dks bPNqd gh ugh gS blls u rks fdlh O;fDr dks inksUufr dh tk ldrh gS A vkSj u fdlh dks Deputation ij gh yxk;k tk ldrk gS Ablls ,e-ts-,e- fcykM+k es iz''kklfud dfBukb;ks ,oa dk;Z izxfr es O;o/kku gh ugh vfirq dfBu leL;k;s iSnk gks x;h gS A

vr% bl deZpkjh dsk vfuok;Z :Ik ls lsok fuo`RRk fd;k tkuk gj n''kk es mfpr gS vr% loZlEefrls lsok fuo`Rr djuk tufgr es gS A

A bare reading of the Screening Committee goes to show that the Committee was mainly influenced by the fact that the petitioner had remained absent from duty for a long period. Now there is no dispute before us that absence from duty without leave is misconduct. It was open to the District Judge to take disciplinary action against the petitioner-appellant for this misconduct. In fact, such an action was contemplated against the petitioner-appellant when notice Ex. 3 was served upon him. The case of the petitioner appellant was that he had been ill during the period. This was a fact which ought to have been enquired into by the District Judge and in case it was found that the appellant bad wilfully absented himself from duty without prior permission, then suitable disciplinary action could have been taken against the petitioner-appellant But the District Judge did not chose to proceed with the notice served upon the appellant. On the other hand, his absence from duty was lateron regularised as would be evident from Ex. 13 and Ex. 14. When viewed in this light we find that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner appellant was merely a camouflage for disciplinary action which could have taken against the petitioner-appellant. We are of the view that we are entitled to pierce the vield behind the order of compulsory retirement and see what actuated the District Judge or the Screening Committee in coming to the conclusion on the basis of which the petitioner-appellant was compulsorily retired.

We may here quote from the order of the Appellate Authority passed in appeal of the petitioner-appellant:

I have gone through the Annual Appraisal Reports of Bhoor Singh for the year 1977 to 1982. His record of service was good during the earlier years and be was considered as a reliable and hard worker except during the period 1961-62. Thereafter in the years from 1963 onwards, he had improved his image and was described as obedient, reliable, hard working, sincere and an energetic official in the annual appraisal reports. During the year 1977-78 his work was described as satisfactory in the annual performance appraisal and the same position continued during the period from 1978 to 1980. In the year 1980-81 he was described as efficient, disciplined, sincere and cool headed worker. Even during the year 1981-82 the annual performance appraisal report described the work of Shri Bboor Singh as satisfactory. Thus, there is no adverse entry in his annual confidential reports in the 10 years preceding 1981-82.

The above observations go to show that the learned Appellate Authority also committed the same mistake which was committed by the District Judge in passing the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has specifically observed that the petitioner''s record of service was good during the earlier years and be was considered as a reliable and hard-working person except during the period 1961-62. There-after in the years from 1963 onward he had improved his image and was described as reliable, hard-working, sincere and energetic official in the annual appraisal report. During the year 1977-78 his work was described as satisfactory in the annual performance appraisal report and the same position continued during the period from 1978 to 1980. In the year 1980-81 he was described as efficient, disciplined, sincere and cool. Even during the year 1981-82 his annual performance appraisal report described the work of Shri Bhoor Singh as satisfactory. Thus, there was no adverse entry in his Annual Confidential Reports in the ten year preceding 1981-82.

In these circumstances, we find that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner-appellant was bad. Learned Single Judge fell in error in upholding the order of District Judge as also the order of the learned Appellate Authority.

No other submissions were made before us.

In view of what we have stated above, we accept this appeal, set aside the order of learned Single Judge dated 8-S-86 and accept the writ petition of the petitioner and quash the orders Ex. 7 and appellate order Ex. 9. The petitioner-appellant shall be forthwith reinstated and shall get all the consequential benefits consequent upon his reinstatement. The petitioner shall be paid his arrears within a period of three months from today and in case the arrears are not paid within that time the petitioner appeallant shall be entitled to interest on his dues at rate of 12% per annum.

We leave the parties to bear their own costs in the circumstances of the case.