- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10. 09. 1999, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging an order of the Rajasthan civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to as `the Tribunal') dated 11. 05. 1999 whereby the Tribunal had dismissed an application filed by the appellant before it challenging an order dated 18. 06. 1996 whereby the appellant had been compulsorily retired.
(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the appellant was working in the Revenue Department of the Government of Rajasthan on the post of Patwari at the relevant time. The appellant was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 18. 06. 1996 under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Rule 24492) of the Rajasthan Services Rules is reproduced as under: " 244 (2) The Government may, after giving him at least three months' previous notice in writing require a government servant to retire from the service on the date on which he completes 25 years of qualifying service or attains the age of 55 years or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice: Provided that a government servant of Class IV can only be required to retire on the date on which he completes 25 years of qualifying service or any date thereafter. " The order of compulsory retirement was challenge by the appellant before the Tribunal amongst others, on the ground that by a circular dated 22. 08. 1990 the Government had decided to use Rule 244 (2) only with respect to gazetted officers and the appellant being a non-gazetted employee, the said Rule could not be invoked in his case. The appellant further relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ratan Lal Bohra vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1) wherein it was held that in view o the said circular dated 22. 08. 1990 (Annex. 7) Rule 244 (2) could not be invoked in case of non-gazetted employees of the (Annex. 8) and keeping the said circular in view the Tribunal held the State under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The Tribunal observed that the circular dated 29. 05. 1995 was never brought to the notice of the Supreme Court and, therefore, the decision in Ratan Lal Bohra's case based on the circular dated 22. 08. 1990 could not be applied in case of the appellant. The order of compulsory retirement in case of the appellant was passed on 18. 06. 1996 i. e. after the circular dated 29. 05. 1995 had come into force. Therefore, the said order would be governed by the later circular. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the application filed by the appellant under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant by way of writ petition filed in this Court. The learned Single Judge agreed with the decision of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition holding that Ratan Lal Bohra's case (supra) was not applicable in the facts of the present case. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal is that Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules could not be invoked in case of the appellant who is a non-gazetted employee. Reliance was placed in support of this argument on the circular dated 22. 08. 1990 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ratan Lal Bohra's case. We have carefully examined the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of material on record. To appreciate the controversy it is to be noted that in the first instance the State Government had issued a circular dated 23. 04. 1990 laying down the procedure to be adopted while invoking Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. This circular has not been placed on record by either party although it finds mention in the circular dated 22. 08. 1990 relied upon by the appellant. We have been able to lay hands on the circular dated 23. 04. 1990 reproduced in a publication titled "sachivalaya SANDESH" in its issue of August, 1990 at page 177. This circular contains detailed procedure to be adopted while taking action against government servants under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The circular is applicable to both, gazetted as well as non-gazetted employees of the State Government. The constitution of review committees which have to review the cases of all the employees before invoking Rule 244 (2 is given in the said circular and different review committees are provided for employees belonging to the gazetted and non-gazetted categories. In non-gazetted category different constitution of review committees for subordinate service staff and for ministerial and Class IV employees is provided for in the said circular. It is clear from the circular that all categories of government servants are covered for action under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The circular dated 22. 08. 1990 which is the mainstay of the case of the appellant refers to the earlier circular dated 23. 04. 1990 and also notes the fact that the earlier circular applies to all classes of government servants. However, the circular dated 22. 08. 1990 states that `at present action under rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules is to be initiated in respect of gazetted government servants only". After this the relevant circular issued by the State Government is one dated 29. 05. 1995 (Annex. 8 to the writ petition ). This circular is more or less on the same lines as was the circular dated 23. 04. 1990 and contains detailed procedure regarding action to be taken under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. It contains instructions as to how periodic review of cases of government servants is to be made. It contains provision for constitution of review committees. In the list of committees are included review committees for subordinate service and review committees for ministerial and class IV service posts. Thus the 1995 circular is intended to cover the cases of all categories of Government servants for action Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. When a circular provides procedure to be followed for a particular action, it is obvious that action is intended to be taken as per the circular. The circular cannot be reduced to a mere paper work. This circular being a later circular would prevail and the circular dated 22. 08. 1990 which was meant only for the "present" when it was issued, would be deemed to be superseded. As a matter of fact on 2. 08. 1996 the State Government issued another circular specifically withdrawing the circular dated 22. 08. 1990 with effect from the date it was issued. In the background of these facts we have to see how far the circular dated 22. 08. 1990 can be relied upon by the appellant and to what extent is Ratan Lal Bohra's case (supra) is of help to him. At this stage we may observe that Ratan Lal Bohra's case is solely based on the circular dated 22. 08. 1990. The Supreme court held that in view of the said circular, action under rule 244 (2) was to be confined to gazetted officers only and Ratan Lal Bohra's case being a case of non-gazetted employee of the State Government, invocation of Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules was held to be bad and the order of compulsory retirement passed in his case was struck down. Ratan Lal Bohra's case does not take note of the subsequent circular dated 29. 05. 1995 to which reference has been made hereinbefore. In our considered view the circular dated 22. 08. 1990 dealt with the situation as `at present'. The said circular could not be said to be operative in the year 1996 when action against the appellant was taken, particularly in view of the subsequent circular of the State Government issued on 29. 05. 1995. This later circular makes it clear that action for compulsory retirement under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules could be taken against all categories of employees of the State Government. Ratan Lal Bohra's case was decided on 18. 03. 1996 and the circular dated 29. 05. 1995 ought to have been brought to the notice of the Apex Court. However, this was not done. Therefore, the decision in Ratan Lal Bohra's case has to be held to have been based on the circular dated 22. 08. 1990 which was non operative by the time the judgment was given. In our view, the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal was perfectly right in distinguishing Ratan Lal Bohra's case in view of the subsequent circular dated 29. 05. 1995 and for that reason not following Ratan Lal Bohra's case. The circular dated 22. 08. 1990 at best signifies a policy decision of the State Government for confining invocation of Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules for the time being in case of gazetted officers of the government only. The subsequent circular dated 29. 05. 1995 declares a change in the government policy and the decision of the State Government to invoke Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules in case of all employees of the State Government. Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules read with circular dated 29. 05. 1995 leaves no manner of doubt that action under the said Rule could be taken against all categories of government employees. Therefore, the impugned action taken against the appellant under rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules cannot be faulted on the ground that Rule 244 (2) was not applicable in case of the appellant. Accordingly, this appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) BEFORE parting with the impugned we may note another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It was submitted that the same learned Single Judge had allowed another writ petition being titled Heeralal vs. State of Rajasthan (2), vide order dated 4. 07. 1998 and had quashed the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service rules could not be invoked because the petitioner in that case was also a non- gazetted employee of the State Government. Therefore, it was argued that the same learned Judge could not take a different view in case of the appellant and dismiss his petition. In this respect we have only to observe that a Judge can always correct himself by way of a subsequent judgment. Secondly, as a matter of fact it is to be noted that the circular dated 29. 05. 1995 was never brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when Heeralal's case was decided by him. Therefore, the learned Single Judge simply followed Ratanlal Bohra's case decided by the Supreme court to which reference has already been made and allowed the petition. In the present case the matter was examined in detail and all relevant facts were placed before the Court. Therefore, a different view emerged which we hereby uphold. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. .;