SUMER MAL SINGHVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as a Sub-Inspector of Police and was compulsory retired under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') by the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, dated November 14, 1975. In this petition, it has been prayed that the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner be set aside, because the petitioner had a clean record of service and there was nothing to warrant an action against him under Rule 244 (2) of the Rules. In para 8 of the writ petition the petitioner has averred that an adverse remark was entered in his confidential rolls, which was communicated to him vide letter dated June 6, 1972 but he has made a representation in respect thereof and no decision has been communicated to him. According to the petitioner, the increments of the petitioner were witheld on two occasions without cumulative effect and there was no justification for passing the order of his compulsory retirement as his efficiency was not impaired. In reply, the respondent's have controverted the averments made by the petitioner and it has been stated that the representation of the petitioner regarding expunging the adverse remarks was rejected and the decision in respect thereof was conveyed to the petitioner by the letter of the Assistant Inspector of General of Police Headquarters, Jaipur dated March 6, 1973 through the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range. It has also been stated that the averment made by the petitioner that his service record was clean was not correct as it would appear from the service rolls that his three grade increments were withheld and he was awarded several punishments of consure.

(2.) THE service record of the petitioner was called for perusal of this Court and it was found from a perusal thereof that the punishment of censure was imposed upon the petitioner on four occasions and his increments were withheld on three occasions though without cumulative effect. THEreupon, the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the alleged orders of punishments of censure and withholding of increments except two were not communicated to the petitioner. By the order of this Court dated January 21, 1977, the Additional Government Advocate was directed to furnish particulars to the petitioner about the various orders of consure and orders withholding increments passed against the petitioner. This order was complied with and the application submitted by the Stale on February 15, 1977, furnished details of seven orders of punishment imposed upon the petitioner, including four of censure and three of withholding increments and it was also specified in respect of such punishments that they were duly conveyed to the petitioner on the dates specified in the application and that the office copies of such orders bore the signatures of the petitioner. Today, an application has been submitted by the petitioner half-heartedly disputing the correctness of the contends of the application filed by the State Governmet dated February 15, 1977 praying that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition as the same has abated, so that the petitioner may avail of an opportunity of pursuing another remedy by way of appeal.