R. S. VERMA, J. - (1.) 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.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition and the appeal he in a narrow compass. THE petitioner has put in 28 years of service under the District Judge, Jodhpur and at the relevant period was working as Reader to Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara. A Screening Committee was constituted by the District Judge, Jodhpur, to screen persons who had 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 whereby the appellant was compulsory 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. II ). 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 exercise of the powers of Rule 244 (2) of the R. S. R. Certain allegations of mala fides 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 Of) account of illness. It appears that no further proceedings were taken in connection with the notice Ex. 3 and the petitioner-appellant was compulsory retired as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. M. R. Singhvi submits that the appellant was compulsory retired in colourable exercise of the powers under Rule 244 (2) of the R. S. R. He has submitted at the 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 remained continuously absent for a long period extending almost for one year it went to support the conclusion arrived at by the Screening Committee that the appellant was either not anxious of remaining 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 in innocuous, yet this court should price the veil and should taken into consideration the real facts which compelled 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 Hariyana and ors. (1 ). Learned counsel for the respondents supports the order of the learned Single Judge 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.
(3.) 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 extension : ************ 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 had 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 later on 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 compulsoretired. 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 of 1982. His record of service was good during the earlier years and he 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 Bhoor Singh as satisfactory. Thus, there is no adverse entry in his annual confidential reports in the 10 years preceding 1981-82. " ;