- (1.) The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Patwari with effect from September 1, 1951. An order of compulsory retirement was passed vide order No. LR/Estt/5229 dated July 31,1978 by the Collector, Jalore under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1958 Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (which will hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, be referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The memorandum of appeal has been filed by the petitioner marked as Ex. 1 The Tribunal, by its order (Ex 3) dated June 13,1979, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying that the impugned order (Ex. 3) dated June 13, 1979 passed by the Tribunal, may be quashed, and that the petitioner may be reinstated on the post of Patwari with all consequential benefits as if the order of compulsory retirement had never been passed against the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard Mr. M.R. Calla, learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length.
(3.) The first contension of Mr. Calla is that the order of compulsory retirement is vitiated in as much as the appointing authority (Collector) had failed to exercise independent discretion in the matter because of circular dated April 19/24th April, 1972, which is as under: Attention is invited to Appointments (A(sic) II CR) Department No. F. 24(55) Appts (4)57 pt. 1 Cr. II/GR dated the 13th January 1955, where in procedure was laid down for compulsory retirement of Ministerial Staff in the State under rule 244(2) of the RSR contents of the above order have been reviewed and in modification of previous instructions of the subject, the following procedure is prescribed for being followed by the various departments: Stoff in the District Including Staff of the Range Level Offices I.E. DIR Dy. Director etc. 1. Collector of the District concerned. Governor 2. Appointing authority if it is other than the Collector, otherwise a senior officer nominated by the Collector. Member On receipt of the recommendations of the committee, retirement orders shall be issued immediately by the concerned appointing authority as per specimen enclosed. The submission of the learned Counsel is that the appointing authority, because of the mandatory character of the aforesaid circular, could not act independently and was bound by the recommendations of the screening committee. In this connection, he placed strong reliance on Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan,1970 RajLW 256. The committee consisted of only two members one is Collector and the other is the appointing authorit. From the circular, it cannot be said that in case of difference of opinion between the two persons, whose opinion shall prevail. The appointing authority is the member of the Screening committee and, therefore, until and unless the appointing authority agrees with the other member, no recommendation can be made The copy of the order of compulsory retirement (Ex. 11) was filed with the memo of appeal (Ex 1). The material portion of the said order reads as under: Whereas Shri Bhootaram Patwari Rewat has completed 25 years of qualifying service attained the age of 50 years. Now, therefore, In pursuance of the delegation made under Sub-rule (2) of rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, vide F.D.'s order No. F. 1(50)FD/Gr. 2OF 1975, dated 23-4-77 the undersigned hereby required Shri Bhootaram Patwari by payment to him three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months previous notice, to retire from the service on the receipt of this order by him. A.P.O. of the amount of Rs. 1620/- in respect of three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months previous notice is enclosed. Encl. D.D. No. A.O. 587669 Dated 31-7-78. sd/- Collector, Jalore Having regad to the order of compulsory retirement, it cannot be said that the appointing authority had not taken the decision of its own or that the appointing authority has not applied its mind or that the Collector being the member of the Committee, was prevented to exercise his own view. A similar point was raised before me in Samshu Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 89 of 1980 decided on January 17, 1980. In that case, after distinguishing Sitaram's case (1), I expressed may agreement with the view taken in Manmal v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 252 of 1974, decided on September 33, 1975, Gafoor Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.,1977 2 SLR 268 and Bansilal v. State of Rajasthan,1978 2 SLR 218. It was held in Bansilal's case that the Committee was only to recommend and the circular no where laid down that the appointing authority should issue order in terms of the recommendation and that the mere fact that the appointing authority shall pass the orders immediately does not imply that it was not open to the appointing authority to exercise its independent judgment and coupe to a decision of its own. The contention is, therefore, rejected.;