JASHPAL SINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who has joined the Indian Police Service in the year 1957 and who was at all the relevant time of this petition Additional Inspector General of Police, has moved this Court by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Mandamus enjoining the State Government as well as the Union of India allowing the petitioner to retire voluntarily under the provisions of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death -cum -Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 on completion of 50 years of age from the Indian Police Service. Before we refer to the relevant correspondence whereby the petitioner intimated his intention to retire voluntarily it would be advisable to refer shortly the circumstances which prompted him to seek the voluntary retirement.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that he was assigned 4th rank in the list of the successful candidates at the All India Services Competitive Examination of 1956 for entry in the Indian Police Service. The petitioner claims to have brilliant academic career and stood First Class First from the Punjab University in the examination for the degree of L.L.B. before he appeared for competitive examination. According to the petitioner, his services have been considered to be meritorious for which he was awarded Presidential Police Award on the Republic Day of 1973. Having regard to his excellent performance in the services, the petitioner claims that "he was deputed to attend the National Defence Course in New Delhi in 1975 where the officers from all India and Central Services are deputed only if the officer concerned has excellent service records with the possibility of his reaching the top position in his service. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Inspector of Police in 1973 in preference to many of his senior colleagues. He was promoted as Deputy Inspector General of Police and was placed in the charge of a Range and thereafter he was promoted as Additional Inspector General of Police in September, 1982. He was posted as a Commissioner of Police, Baroda after the post was upgraded from the rank of Deputy Inspector General to that of Additional Inspector General of Police. The petitioner claims that he was posted at Baroda specially with a mission to look after the riotous city and it is his claim that by his untiring and relentless efforts he brought about the normalcy in the city of Baroda in spite of many anti -social elements were at large in the city. The petitioner claims further that it is a curbing the riots in the city of Baroda by the Chief Minister and the Home Minister of the State. In spite of his meritorious services at Baroda, the petitioner was summoned by the Additional Chief Secretary Shri R. V. Chandramauli on December 13, 1982 when he was told about the decision of the Government to transfer him; but before the transfer order is issued, the Government wanted to know from him whether the petitioner would like to go on leave or would like to be posted elsewhere. According to the petitioner, the decision for transferring him was taken somewhere on 9th December, 1982 by the Government in presence of the Home Minister, the Director General and the Inspector General of Police. The decision for his transfer was taken since in the opinion of the Government, the petitioner was not able to handle the situation in Baroda effectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that the situation in Baroda deteriorated clearly after 9th December, 1982 and, therefore there could not have been any justification for the Government to take the decision of transfer. The petitioner has imputed that the decision of his transfer was clearly biased and actuated by malafides on the part of the Government. It should be noted at this stage that we are referring to these averments in the petition only for purposes of indicating what were the circumstances which prompted the petitioner ultimately to seek voluntary retirement from the service. The petitioner, in this connection, also refers to some preliminary inquiry initiated by the State Government through one Shri M. J. Jadeja, who happened to be Director of Anti -corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad somewhere in February, 1983. The petitioner alleges that neither Shri Jadeja nor the Government supplied him with the necessary documents which he requested for in order to enable him to send a reply to the information called for by Shri Jadeja vide his letter of February 27, 1983. The petitioner also has made some grievance about the communication of the adverse remarks by the then Chief Secretary for the years 1982 -83 entered in his service records - in his confidential rolls -which, according to the petitioner, were not communicated within the prescribed period. Though the Government decided to transfer the petitioner he was not given any posting till June, 1983 as two citizens of Baroda had filed civil suit and obtained interim order restraining the State Government from transferring the petitioner which was vacated in June, 1983. The petitioner was thereafter posted as In charge Computer Centre at Gandhinagar after upgrading the said post which was held by a person of the rank of DIG. The petitioner has challenged the upgrading of the post since according to the petitioner this post was upgraded and down -graded having regard to the cadre of the incumbent and not according to the relevant prescribed criteria under the rules for upgrading such posts. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Government wanted the petitioner to work on a lower rank than the one which was befitting his status. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner addressed a letter of September 27, 1983 to the Chief Secretary of the State Government about his intention to seek voluntary retirement. He intimated by the said letter to the Government that he sought voluntary retirement from the services. However, in the said letter, he requested the Government that he should be treated as having retired from the Indian Police Service with effect from 1st November, 1983. He prayed for issuance of appropriate orders in the matter of terminal benefits in the said letter.

(3.) UNFORTUNATELY , however, the State Government did not respond immediately to this letter of the petitioner with the result that he was required to address another letter on October 6, 1983 which was also addressed to the Chief Secretary. In this letter of October 6, 1983, the petitioner referred to his earlier letter of September 27, 1983 wherein he had intimated the Government about his intention to retire with effect from 1st November, 1983. In the second paragraph of this letter of October 6, 1983 the petitioner referred to the requirement of the provisions contained in Rule 16 (2) and (2A) of the aforesaid Rules of three months' notice before retirement. The petitioner thereafter expressed his opinion that the Government can waive the requirement of three months' notice. He, therefore, requested the State Government that the approval of the Government of India to permit him to retire from the Indian Police Service be taken and accordingly relieve him from the services with effect from 1st November, 1983. In the penultimate paragraph of the said letter, the petitioner clarified that in case the Government of Gujarat insisted on three months' notice, the said period should be counted with effect from the date of his earlier letter, that is, September 27, 1983, and accordingly he should be allowed to retire with effect from 27th December, 1983 on expiry of the three months period. To this letter also the State Government did not respond immediately with the result that the petitioner intimated the State Government by telegram of October 25, 1983 reminding the State Government of his intention to retire as intimated vide letter of September 27, 1983 and October 6, 1983. It is only after the receipt of this telegram that the State Government responded and the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Home Department by his letter of October 31, 1983 which was delivered in person to the petitioner in the afternoon of the said date conveyed to the petitioner that the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement under Rule 16 (2A) of the said Rules was not accepted by the Government and, therefore, he could not be allowed to retire voluntarily on 1st November, 1983 as required by the petitioner in his first letter of September 27, 1983. It appears that the petitioner, prior to the delivery of the letter of the State Government dated 31st October, 1983, received an envelope containing the Memorandum incorporating the Government's decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Ail India (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1959 since the petitioner had committed breach of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and that in exercise of the powers vested in the Government by Rule 3 of the said Discipline and Appeal Rules, placed the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect until further orders. The petitioner wrote back to the Government by his letter of November 5, 1983 setting out in details, inter alia, the ground of his retirement and the relevant provisions of the Rules under which he was seeking retirement and also invited the attention of the Government to the clarification issued by the Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Ministry of Home Affairs, about Rule 16 (2) under which he was seeking his retirement. The petitioner thereafter moved this court for appropriate writs, orders and directions to enjoin the respondents for allowing him to retire according to the Rules.