- (1.) Petitioner-Faizul Hasan in this writ petition has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement dated 12.1.2001 and also the validity of adverse remarks recorded in his APARs of the year 1991-92, 1997-98 and 1998-99 and Rule 36A of the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited Employees (Classification, Disciplinary Action & Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for short-"the Rules of 1969"). In the course of arguments, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the validity of the Rules and has confined his arguments as to the correctness of the order of compulsory retirement. Original writ petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petitioner on 31.1.2013. His legal representative have substituted him and have prosecuted the matter. Reference to the petitioner hereinafter should however be construed to mean original writ petitioner.
(2.) Petitioner, consequent upon his appointment as Senior Assistant on 6.1.1975, entered the service of the respondent-Corporation. He was later promoted to the post of Accountant against the vacancies of the year 1978-79 vide order dated 30.6.1983. He was further promoted to the post of Senior Accountant vide order dated 30.3.1991. The Chairman cum Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation by the impugned order dated 12.1.2001 compulsorily retired the petitioner with effect from the date of issuance of such order. The order was accompanied by banker's cheque of Rs.34,362 representing the amount of pay and allowances payable to the petitioner for the notice period. It is this order which is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition on various grounds.
(3.) Shri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per Rule 36A(ii) of the Rules of 1969, an employee may be retired by management from service on the date on which he completes 20 years of service or on the date on which he attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, after giving at least three months' notice in writing or by payment of three months' pay and allowances in lieu thereof. Management has been defined in Rule 5(xxiv) to mean the Board of Directors of the Corporation in relation to any power exercisable by it. In the present case, the decision to compulsory retire the petitioner was not taken by the Board of Directors and, therefore, such decision was wholly incompetent illegal and arbitrary. When this argument was made before the Court on 22.2.2011, the respondents were required to produce the relevant records and show whether the order of compulsory retirement was passed on the basis of decision taken by the Board of Directors and whether Board prior to issuance of impugned order has had the occasion to consider the service record of the petitioner. Instead of producing the record, the respondents have relied on a resolution passed on 17.3.2011 whereby the Board has purportedly given an ex-post facto approval with retrospective effect to the order passed by the Executive Director. The said resolution has been placed on record along with affidavit by the respondents on 28.3.2011.;