Chand Pal vs State of Rajasthan and Another

M.N. Bhandari, J.—This writ petition challenges the order of compulsory retirement dated 18th July, 2005 so as the order dated 9th December, 2011 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. By the impugned order dated 18th July, 2005, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by invoking rule 53(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that compulsory retirement was given pursuant to a recommendation of Superintendent of Police alleging change of caste to take benefit of reservation so as the service. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid and finally punishment of censure was inflicted. Once, the punishment in reference to the allegations was given, respondent should not have used it for passing order of compulsory retirement. It will more so when the entire service record of the petitioner is unblemished other than the punishment of censure as referred above. The petitioner was never conveyed adverse entry and thus not reflected by the respondent in their reply. In fact, after inflicting the punishment of censure, the matter was again taken up to hold punishment to be inadequate. The respondents instead of taking up the matter as per Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules to review, evolved the mechanism of compulsory retirement to inflict a higher punishment for delinquency for which he had already been punished. Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 cannot be invoked to impose punishment arising out of disciplinary action. The provision can be invoked for compulsory retirement based on the service record and if an official is found to be deadwood. The tribunal failed to consider all these aspects while upholding the order of compulsory retirement.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that petitioner''s delinquency was looked into as he obtained service by changing his caste enabling him to take benefit of reservation. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and punished with censure. A criminal case is also pending against the petitioner for the same act. Thus, taking note of pendency of the criminal case and the delinquency, order of compulsory retirement was passed.

I considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

From the record, it is coming out that other than the punishment of censure, entire service record of the petitioner is unblemished. The punishment of censure is also not arising out of the work of the petitioner after appointment but in regard to the allegation for change of caste to take benefit of reservation. The petitioner has already been punished for the aforesaid. Thus, cannot further be punished by way of compulsory retirement as it would be hit by double jeopardy.

It is otherwise a fact that compulsory retirement under rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 cannot be by way of punishment. In fact, rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules provide compulsory retirement even as punishment but in the case at hand, the order of compulsory retirement is not as a measure of punishment. In the background aforesaid, I do not find any justification of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. A person can be compulsorily retired if is found to be deadwood or his service record is such that continuation is not in public interest. The case in hand is not falling in the category aforesaid.

In the light of the discussion above, the order of tribunal cannot be allowed to sustain. The respondents need to be reasonable while passing the order of compulsory retirement because it takes away livelihood of a person that too when material does not exists, so as to hold him to be deadwood or his continuation in service against public interest. In the background of the aforesaid, the order of compulsory retirement, the order of the tribunal are set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. However, he would not be entitled to the actual benefit of intervening period but, entitlement would be of notional benefits. It is further made clear that if outcome of the criminal case warrants further action at the instance of the respondent, they would be free to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case and in that event, the judgment will not come in their way. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid.