GOPI KISHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal was filed by the widow and children of late Gopi Kishan who was working as Sub Inspector of Police against the order dated 16. 3. 98 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1301/92 (filed by Gopi Kishan ). The said Gopi Kishan joined the service of the Government of Rajasthan as Constable on 15. 8. 61. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1967 and as Assistant Inspector of Police in 1977 and, thereafter, to the post of Sub Inspector of Police on 17. 08. 81. The said Gopi Kishan on account of certain family circumstances served a notice for voluntary retirement under Rule 244 (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1958 dated 18. 9. 91 (Annex. 1 ). The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer passed an order on 1. 11. 91 (Annex. 3 ). In view of the voluntary retirement with effect from 31. 12. 91 (Annex. 3 ). In view of the voluntary retirement Gopi Kishan was transferred from Ajmer to Nagaur. Subsequently, the said Gopi Kishan had decided to withdraw the notice and serve the State Government for the remaining period of his service upto the date of superannuation. He, therefore, submitted a representation dated 13. 12. 91 withdrawing his notice of voluntary retirement (Annex. 4 ). But the Deputy Inspector General of police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer however, did not permit the said Gopi Kishan to withdraw his voluntary retirement notice vide his order dated 30. 12. 91 (Annex. 5 ). Gopi Kishan was, therefore, retired on 31. 12. 91 in compliance of the order dated 30. 12. 91. Gopi Kishan made a further representation on 15. 1. 92 to the Inspector General of Police requesting him to take him back in service but there was no response. Gopi Kishan earlier filed writ petition No. 1069/92 but he was allowed to withdraw the writ petition with permission to file fresh writ vide order dated 19. 2. 92. Since his request to continue in service was not complied with, Gopi Kishan filed the present writ petition praying, (1) striking down words "with the approval of appointing authority in Rule 244 (1) (f) of the Rajasthan Service Rules as unconstitutional; (2) to quash the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 30. 12. 91; (3) directing the respondents to take the petitioner back in service and to treat the petitioner as continuing in service and any other consequential benefits.

(2.) A reply was filed by the respondents. According to the respondents, the Deputy Inspector General of police has rightly not permitted Gopi Kishan to withdraw his voluntary retirement notice and, accordingly, he was retired voluntarily on 31. 12. 91 in compliance of the order dated 30. 12. 91. It is submitted that the words "with the approval of the appointing authority" neither conferred any arbitrary power upon the appointing authority nor the same offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as alleged and that such condition/requirement is imposed with a view to keep administrative control as well as to check genuineness of the request made by the concerned in that regard and not in any manner otherwise as alleged by the petitioner. It was submitted that the reasons given by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in his order dated 30. 12. 91 are valid and it does not suffer from any vice or infirmity and the same was passed by the competent authority.

(3.) THE writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Judge was of the opinion that since the resignation had already been accepted prior to the application for withdrawal, the application has been rightly turned down by the impugned order dated 30th December, 1991 and that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 30th December, 1991 contained in Annex. 5 to the writ petition and hence no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The learned Judge in coming to the said conclusion has referred to 2 decisions of the Supreme Court, reported in Gopal Chand Mishra vs. Union of India (1) and Bal Ram Gupta vs. Union of India (2) to the effect that the resignation can be withdrawn prior to the date of acceptance.