Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 164 (RAJ)

Sher Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-01-21

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon'ble VYAS, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer : "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the orders dated 28.11.2000 (Annexure-3) and 11.11.2009 (Annexure-5) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate Tribunal registered as 252/2007 may kindly be allowed, further respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner from the dated 28.11.2000 and be allowed all the consequential benefits from date 28.11.2000; (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; (iii) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the Police Department as Constable on 24.7.1970 by the Superintendent of Police, Jalore. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 25.12.1975 and, further, on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 1.8.1980. In the year 1988, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector vide order dated 22.8.1988. 3. For further promotion on the post of Inspector, the petitioner was called for facing written examination and other proceedings on 23.11.1997 and 24.11.1997. Thereafter, petitioner was allowed to face the out-door test conducted on 25th and 26th of December, 1997; but, the petitioner was not selected for promotion to the post of Inspector. 4. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur for issuing direction to promote the petitioner after considering his merit and, in pursuance of the order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 71/1998, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents to consider his candidature in accordance with the direction given by he Tribunal but his candidature was rejected. Thereafter, being aggrieved with the rejection of his candidature for the post of Inspector, the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4617/2000 before this Court; and, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was given compulsory retirement on 28.11.2000 while exercising powers conferred by Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. Against said order, the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 398/2008 but the same was dismissed with liberty to file appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Against said order, the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 398/2008 but the same was dismissed with liberty to file appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Tribunal against the order of compulsory retirement and said appeal was registered as Appeal No. 252/2007. The Tribunal dismissed the said appeal vide judgment dated 11.11.2009. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging both order of compulsory retirement dated 28.11.2000, Annex.3 and order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.11.2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised so many grounds with regard to finding given by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Specific ground is that the Tribunal has given the finding on the basis of incorrect recommendation given by the Screening Committee without scrutinizing the service record in right perspective, therefore, the judgment of the learned Tribunal is illegal and contrary to the record. The petitioner while placing on record certain documents along with this writ petition has prayed that finding given by the learned Tribunal is totally erroneous, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed along with order of compulsory retirement and petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to alleging that the petitioner corrupt police official is against service record, therefore, the judgment deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted during the course of arguments that all relevant record may be examined which is placed on the record for the purpose of reversing the finding given by the Tribunal. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that decision of compulsory retirement under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 is within the domain of the respondent Department and, on the basis of entire service record, the order of compulsory retirement can be made. It is also required to be observed that giving compulsory retirement to the employee under Rule 53(1) of the 1996 Rules is not a punishment but it is decision of the Government not to allow any government servant to continue in service whose efficiency is impaired. 8. It is also required to be observed that giving compulsory retirement to the employee under Rule 53(1) of the 1996 Rules is not a punishment but it is decision of the Government not to allow any government servant to continue in service whose efficiency is impaired. 8. In this case, after perusing the finding of the learned Tribunal as well as record placed before this Court, I am of the opinion that finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is based upon the facts of the case and it is not permissible for this Court to interfere with the finding of fact in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, the Government has rightly exercised its power under Rule 53(1) of the 1996 Rules and learned Tribunal has also arrived at correct finding that there is material on record upon which decision taken by the government to give compulsory retirement is proper. Therefore, there is no force in this writ petition. 9. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.