Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 924 (RAJ)

Nathu Ram Verma v. Director General of Police

2017-04-07

K.S.JHAVERI, VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has upheld the compulsory retirement order which was issued by the competent authority. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-appellant was initially appointed on the post of LDC. Since, his work and behaviour was quite satisfactory he was promoted as UDC and during the service tenure he was also awarded some cash rewards. However, vide order dated 29.7.2010 the petitioner was compulsory retired. 3. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-appellant was initially appointed on the post of LDC. Since, his work and behaviour was quite satisfactory he was promoted as UDC and during the service tenure he was also awarded some cash rewards. However, vide order dated 29.7.2010 the petitioner was compulsory retired. 3. Considering the evidence on record while considering the case, the Tribunal observed as under: ^^geus nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksZa ij Hkyh&Hkkafr fopkj fd;k gSA gekjs er esa fnukad 31-10-1987 dks eq[; ys[kkf/kdkjh] iqfyl eq[;ky;] jktLFkku }kjk mls fn;k x;k izek.k i= ,d NksVh lh vof/k ds fy, vkSj og Hkh o"kZ 1987 ls lEcfU/kr gS] vr% bldh dksbZ lqlaxrrk bl ekeys esa ugha gSA vihykFkhZ }kjk ikfjrksf"kd iznku djus ds nks vkns'k izn'kZ&2 ,oa 3 izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa os o"kZ 2008&09 ls lEcfU/kr gS ftuls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd bl vof/k esa lEcfU/kr vf/kdkjh us vihykFkhZ ds dk;Z dks izla'kuh; ekuk gSA blh rjg izn'kZ&5 ,oa 6 }kjk Hkh lu 2008&09 ,oa o"kZ 2009&10 dh vof/k esa dk;kZy; le; ls iwoZ ,oa dk;kZy; le; ds i'pkr :ddj dk;Z djus ds fy, ekuns; Hkh vihykFkhZ dks feyk gS vkSj bu nLrkostksa ls ;g ekuk tk ldrk gS fd o"kZ 2008&09 ,oa o"kZ 2009&10 dh vof/k esa vihykFkhZ us vfrfjDr le; ij :d dj dk;Z fd;k gS] fdUrq vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr ds fy, deZpkjh dk leLr lsokfHkys[k ns[kk tkrk gSA u fd 1&2 o"kZ dk dk;ZA tSlk izR;FkhZx.k us crk;k gS o"kZ 1990 ls o"kZ 2008 ds e/; vihykFkhZ dks fuEu izdkj nf.Mr fd;k x;k Fkk %& 1- fnukad 21-04-1990 dks vuq'kklu dh dk;Zokgh esa vihykFkhZ dks ifjfuUnk dk n.M fn;k x;k FkkA 2- fnukad 31-12-1998 dks vuq'kklu dh dk;Zokgh esa vihykFkhZ dh ,d okf"kZd osru o`f) fcuk Hkfo"; ds izHkko ds jksdh xbZ FkhA 3- fnukad 26-08-2008 dks vuq'kklu dh dk;Zokgh esa vihykFkhZ dks ifjfuUnk dk n.M fn;k x;k FkkA 4- fnukad 22-06-2002 dks vuq'kklu dh dk;Zokgh esa vihykFkhZ dks ifjfuUnk dk n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k FkkA 5- fnukad 08-06-2000 ds vkns'k ls vuq'kklu dh dk;Zokgh esa vihykFkhZ dks ifjfuUnk dk n.M fn;k x;k FkkA 6- fnukad 16-05-2007 ds vkns'k }kjk vuq'kklu dh dk;Zokgh esa vihykFkhZ dks ifjfuUnk dk n.M fn;k x;k FkkA 7- fnukad 27-06-2008 ds vkns'k ls vuq'kklu dh dk;Zokgh esa vihykFkhZ dks ifjfuUnk dk n.M fn;k x;k FkkA 8- fnukad 21-07-2008 ds vkns'k }kjk vuq'kklu dh dk;Zokgh esa vihykFkhZ dks ifjfuUnk dk n.M fn;k x;k FkkA vihykFkhZ us dz0la0 5]7 ,oa dz0la0 9 ij ftu vuq'kklu dk;Zokgh dk ftdz fd;k gS muds vkSfpR; dks vius tokc my tokc esa pqukSrh nh gSA ijUrq vihykFkhZ us bu n.Mksns'kksa ds fo:) dksbZ vihy izLrqr ugha dh Fkh vkSj ge mDr n.Mkns'kksa ds vkSfpR; ij bl izdj.k esa fopkj ugha dj ldrs gSa vkSj gekjs er esa mijksDr% crk;s x;s lHkh n.Mkns'k vihykFkhZ ds lsokfHkys[k esa ekStwn gSA vr% mu ij fopkj djrs gq, vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr ckcr fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSaA bl ekeys esa vihykFkhZ dk ,slk dksbZ dsl ugha gSA fd fdlh nqHkkZouk ls mls vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr iznku dh xbZ FkhA gekjs er esa vihykFkhZ ds lsokfHkys[k esa tks 8 n.M ekStwn gS mudks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ,slk dnkfi ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr iznku djus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha Fkk ;k blds fy, dksbZ lk{; ugha FksaA gekjs er esa vihykFkhZ ds mDr lsokfHkys[k dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, dksbZ Hkh ;qfDreku O;fDr ;g fu"d"kZ fudky ldrk gS fd vihykFkhZ vius jktdh; drZO;ksa ds fu"iknu djus esa dq'ky ugha Fkk vkSj mldh mi;ksfxrk u"V gks xbZ FkhA gekjs er esa bl izdj.k ds rF;ksa esa ,slk dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrk fd vihykFkhZ dks vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr euekus :i ls nh xbZ FkhA gekjs er esa o"kZ 1990 ls o"kZ 2008 ds e/; fujUrj 8 ckj vihykFkhZ dks ftl izdkj nf.Mr fd;k x;k Fkk mls ns[krs gq, vihykFkhZ ds vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr ds vkns'k dks vuwfpr ;k fof/k fo:) ughas Bgjk;k tk ldrkA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ckyd`".k xxZ cuke jktLFkku ljdkj 2005¼2½ MCY;q0,y0lh0 ¼jkt0½ 392 ds fu.kZ; esa foHkkxh; tkap esa ckj&ckj nf.Mr djus ds vk/kkj ij nh xbZ vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr dks lgh Bgjk;k FkkA loksZPp U;k;ky; us Hkh dqN ,slk gh er lR;izdk'k xqIrk cuke gfj;k.kk jkT;] 1997 ,elh0lh0 ¼,y0,.M ,l0½ 1764 ds fu.kZ; esa O;Dr fd;k FkkA** 4. The same was considered by the learned Single Judge and the petition was dismissed. 5. Counsel for the appellant mainly contended that after the eight punishments referred by the Tribunal, the appellant was appreciated and he was awarded cash amount of Rs. 51/- on 2.1.2009 and 1.4.2009 by way of appreciation. Therefore, he contended that looking to the Supreme Court decision, imposition of punishment of censor while the appellant was appreciated is not just and proper and the order of compulsory retirement was liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. 7. Taking into consideration the observations made by the learned Single Judge in its order in review which reads as under: "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while giving compulsory retirement to the petitioner, complete service record should have been seen. The respondents have failed to do while passing the order. The petitioner was given promotion in the year 1997 and was never conveyed adverse ACR. In view of above, the prayer is made to cause interference in the order of compulsory retirement. To support the argument judgment in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. (supra) has been relied. On a perusal of the order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, it comes out that petitioner was punished from different punishments from time to time starting from the year 1990. In the last five years from the date of compulsory retirement, there exist three punishments and, prior to it, three punishments exist after the promotion. The tribunal considered the aforesaid while dismissing the appeal. It is not that if an employee is not having adverse remarks then order of compulsory retirement cannot be passed. It can be when there exists other adversity, which may be due to of punishment. It is a fact that no promotion was given to the petitioner other than in the year 1997 and six punishments exist subsequent to the order of promotion thus they were rightly taken into consideration by the respondents. It cannot be said that the respondents have failed to look into the entire record. The petitioner said to have been given rewards or commendations. The aforesaid has also been perused by the court but it does not wash out the punishments exist against the petitioner. It cannot be said that the respondents have failed to look into the entire record. The petitioner said to have been given rewards or commendations. The aforesaid has also been perused by the court but it does not wash out the punishments exist against the petitioner. The perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. (supra) does not suggest that even if adversity exist, interference should be made by the court in the order of compulsory retirement. It is moreso when compulsory retirement is not considered to be a punishment unless inflicted after an inquiry under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1958. Even as per judgment of the Apex Court, the case is not made out for interference in the order of compulsory retirement when as many as eight punishments exist against the petitioner and had been considered by the respondents." 8. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge particularly looking to the fact that petitioner was in a disciplined force where eight penalties were imposed and he was treated as a dead-wood. 9. Hence, no interference is called for. The appeal stands dismissed.