DR. P.K. KULSHRESTHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is to set aside the order dated 04.03.2002 (Annex.14) as also the order passed on review petition dated 13.09.2002 (Annex.16) affirming the aforesaid order after holding that the petitioner stood voluntarily retired w.e.f. 31.12.1997.

(2.) The petitioner in the first instance was selected in the Central Government Service pursuant whereto he served as GDMO, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, New Delhi. Then he was selected on the post of Pediatrician (Scientific Officer/SOSD), Raap, Kota under Department of Atomic Energy. The aforesaid assignment lasted from 1979 to 198 Having cleared R.P.S.C. the petitioner was appointed as Junior Specialist PED in 1982 itself. He continued to serve at various places in Rajasthan. It was in March, 1997 while serving as Senior Specialist PED at Bangar Hospital, Pali that he and his wife who was also a doctor, came to be transferred simultaneously to Bundi and Nainwa respectively. The transfer so effected brought in its turn serious problems in his family. Hence both the petitioner and his wife made applications on 5/21.03.1997 seeking voluntary retirement. According to this application three months period of notice was to commence from 01.10.1997 and the voluntary retirement was to become effective on and from 31st December, 1997. This application was sent through registered post. The petitioner simultaneously sent letters dated 21.03.1997 to the competent authority to reckon his Central and State Services so that he may have to his credit requisite qualifying service for voluntary retirement. No order either rejecting his application or accepting his application for voluntary retirement was passed. Hence, he was deemed to have voluntarily retired on 31.11997 in accordance with Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996. Accordingly, the petitioner did not go back on duty having voluntarily retired from the effective date. After two years, a charge-sheet dated 30.06.1999 was issued to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4733/1999 with a prayer to set aside the charge-sheet since the petitioner stood retired on 31.11997 and no departmental proceedings could be initiated against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules with a further prayer to settle and finalise the pension case of the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, a punishment of removal from service was imposed vide order dated 04.03.2002 rendering the writ petition as having become infructuous. The petitioner challenged the same in a review petition. However, the said review petition was also dismissed vide order dated 13.09.200

(3.) While praying for setting aside the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised threefold arguments: