BANSHI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as L. D. C. on 16th of February, 1945, in the erstwhile State of Mewar. On the integration of the State into the United State of Rajasthan his services were transferred to the State of Rajasthan. It is not in dispute that the petitioner completed 25 years qualifying service on 9-2-7. THE petitioner was compulsorily retired on 11-12-72 vide Ex. 1. On receiving the notice of the order of compulsory retirement the petitioner served a notice of demand of justice but did not receive any reply to the notice. He, therefore, has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of of India praying for a writ or direction for quashing the order of compulsory retirement (Ex. 1 ).

(2.) THE case of the petitioner succinctly put is that the petitioner's efficiency bar grade was closed but later on by order Ex. 2 the petitioner was permitted to cross the efficiency bar from 1-4-68 by order dated 9-10-1971. According to the petitioner this fact is an ample proof that the petitioner's services were recognised by the non-petitioner No. 2 who is his appointing authority as efficient It has been further averred that from November 1971 the petitioner has been serving under the Sub Divisional Officer Shahpura who has given a certificate to the effect that the petitioner's work under him had been satisfactory and there was no complaint of any kind against him so far his work was concerned. On the basis of the above averments the petitioner has contended in his petition that there was no valid justification for compulsorily retiring him as it could not be said that his efficiency was in any way impaired. THE petitioner further challenges the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that the appointing authority had not independently applied its mndi before taking the decision for compulsorily retiring him in as much as under the circular the appointing authority's discretion was fettered in view of the fact that under the circular it was incumbent upon the appointing authority to act upon the recommendations of the screening committee.

(3.) THE contention that the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficieney-bar also does not deserve any merit. While assessing the efficiency of the petitioner for the purposes of taking decision relating to compulsory retirement the record of his service of his entire period of 25 years is to be taken into account and mere stray or isolated entry in favour of the petitioner for one year will not dislodge the inference that the petitionr's efficiency was not impaired. One has to look into the over all picture of the entire period of service career of the petitioner and after taking into consideration the totality of the record the conclusion regarding the efficiency of the petitioner has to be arrived at. In the present case as stated earlier a large number of adverse entries find place in his service book beginning for the year 1963 over specially from the years 1963-64 to 1971-72 excepting for the one year namely the year 1970-71. THE appointing authority had arrived at the conclusion after going through the relevant annual confidential report Rules and this Court will not sit as a court of appeal to re-assess the efficiency of the petitioner afresh in a writ of certiorari. In this conclusion of mine I am fortified by the authorities Prem-chand Shangi vs. State of Rajasthan (2) and Dr. C. L. Pathak vs. State of Rajasthan (3) THE learned counsel however urged that in the year 1971 the petitioner having been allowed to cross the efficiency bar the previous adverse entries stood wiped out. In this connection he relied upon State of Punjab vs. Dewan Chunilal (4) and J. P Jain vs. Union of India (5) THE case State of Punjab vs. Dewan Chunilal (4) is distinguishable as pointed out by Hon'ble Gupta J. in Premchand Sanghi's case That case related to the promotion of Government employee. THE principle to be employed in case of promotion is to be distinguished from the one applicable to the case of compulsory retirement. Incase of compulsory retirement the entire service record of the petitioner has to be taken into account and, therefore, it will be really unrealistic to hold that for the purposes of compulsory retirement also that the subsequent order of allowing the crossing of the efficiency bar will wipe out the previous adverse entries. J P. Jain's case although supports the case of the petitioner but it is based on State of Punjab vs. Dewan Chunilal's case. THErefore, this case although relating to compulsory retirement cannot be taken to be a good proposition in case of compulsory retirement. THE principles bearing on the question of compulsory retirement have been elaborately discussed by Gupta J. in Premchand Sanghi vs. State of Rajasthan and Hon'ble Lodha J. In Dr. C L Pathak vs. State of Rajasthan wherein various authorities have been discussed in detail and 1 need not refer them again here to unnecessarily encumber my judgment as I am entirely in the agreement with the reasons given in Premchand Sanghi vs. State of Rajasthan and Dr. C. L. Pathak vs. State of Rajasthan.