CHAND PAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the order of compulsory retirement dated 18th July, 2005 so as the order dated 9th December, 2011 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. By the impugned order dated 18th July, 2005, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by invoking rule 53(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that compulsory retirement was given pursuant to a recommendation of Superintendent of Police alleging change of caste to take benefit of reservation so as the service. The petitioner was charge -sheeted for the aforesaid and finally punishment of censure was inflicted. Once, the punishment in reference to the allegations was given, respondent should not have used it for passing order of compulsory retirement. It will more so when the entire service record of the petitioner is unblemished other than the punishment of censure as referred above. The petitioner was never conveyed adverse entry and thus not reflected by the respondent in their reply. In fact, after inflicting the punishment of censure, the matter was again taken up to hold punishment to be inadequate. The respondents instead of taking up the matter as per Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules to review, evolved the mechanism of compulsory retirement to inflict a higher punishment for delinquency for which he had already been punished. Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 cannot be invoked to impose punishment arising out of disciplinary action. The provision can be invoked for compulsory retirement based on the service record and if an official is found to be deadwood. The tribunal failed to consider all these aspects while upholding the order of compulsory retirement.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that petitioner's delinquency was looked into as he obtained service by changing his caste enabling him to take benefit of reservation. The petitioner was charge -sheeted and punished with censure. A criminal case is also pending against the petitioner for the same act. Thus, taking note of pendency of the criminal case and the delinquency, order of compulsory retirement was passed.

(3.) FROM the record, it is coming out that other than the punishment of censure, entire service record of the petitioner is unblemished. The punishment of censure is also not arising out of the work of the petitioner after appointment but in regard to the allegation for change of caste to take benefit of reservation. The petitioner has already been punished for the aforesaid. Thus, cannot further be punished by way of compulsory retirement as it would be hit by double jeopardy.