KESHA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in the present matter where, by the impugned order dated 16.09.2011, the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner appellant on his grievance against the order retiring him compulsorily.

(2.) The sum and substance of the matter remains that the petitioner appellant had been working on the post of Constable; and allegedly filed an application seeking compulsory retirement that was rejected on 30.07.2000 with the observations that an FIR No.142/97 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 353, 332, 458 IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act had been registered against him at Police Station Jawaja, District Ajmer in which, after investigation, challan had been filed. Thereafter, the appellant was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service by the order dated 30.11.2000 (Annexure 2) under Rule 53 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996.

(3.) Seeking to question the order so passed against him, the petitioner appellant filed the writ petition leading to this appeal and it was pointed out before the learned Single Judge of this Court on behalf of the petitioner that in the said criminal case, he was acquitted by the judgment dated 13.11.2006. It was further submitted that an application was filed by the petitioner - appellant seeking all retiral benefits but the same was not allowed. It was also pointed out that earlier, he filed a writ petition, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4499/2004, challenging the order of compulsory retirement, wherein this Court directed him to make a representation to the respondents; and the respondents were directed to decide the representation while considering all the facts and grounds raised. However, the representation so made was considered and rejected on 10.01.2005. It was submitted before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner's prayer for voluntary retirement was rejected in the month of July 2000 solely on the ground that a criminal case was registered against him but just four months thereafter, he was given the order of compulsory retirement. It was contended that when the petitioner had been acquitted of the charges levelled against him in the year 2006, the respondents were, in the given set of facts and circumstances, under an obligation to reconsider his case. It was also contended that since after acquittal, the petitioner was entitled for all the retiral benefits, as if the order of compulsorily retirement had not been passed.