SIBAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition by one Sibal Singh, who was a sub-inspector of police in the State of Raj as than and by it he questions the validity of the order of his compulsory retirement dated 21 August 1935 (Ex 37 on record), issued under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1952. He also prays for an appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondent. The relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner questions the validity of the order of his compulsory retirement (Ex. 37) on a number of grounds. The first ground is that Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules is ultra vires of the Constitution as the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as it denied equality of opportunity to the petitioner to serve the state and also it gave arbitrary powers to the Government to pick and choose persons for compulsory retirement, simply because one has been in the service of the state for the requisite period of 25 years and it thus vests unguided discretion in the Government, The second ground of attack is that the action was actuated by mala fides as the enquiries started by Sri K. N. Gupta were still pending against the petitioner. It in next urged that the petitioner had completed thirty years of service and, therefore, his case could not have been scrutinized at the time it was done, as he had long passed the limit of 25 years. It was then contended that the impugned order was bad as the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Jodhpur Range, not being the appointing authority in the case of the petitioner, was not competent to pass the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. It is maintained that it was the Government who alone could have passed the order. In the regard it is averred that the case of the petitioner had not been scrutinized by the Government according to the Business Rules of the Government and the proposal had not gone to the Chief Minister or Governor and the latter had thus not applied their minds to the case. Lastly, it is submitted that the powers of the Government under Rule 244 (2) could not have been delegated to subordinate authorities.

(3.) THE writ petition has been opposed on behalf of the respondents and it is submitted that the order of the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was actually passed by the Government though it was communicated through the Inspector-General of Police by the Government and the Inspector-General of Police in his turn directed the Deputy Inspector-General of Police to comply with the orders of the Government.