SHRIRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was employed as a Head Constable by the order Ex. 1 with effect from April 4, 1950. While he was working as such, certain charges were levelled against him and by the order dated May 31, 1975, he was held guilty of grave irregularities and of making false entries in the police records. Consequently, the punishment of reduction in rank or demotion to the post of a Constable for a period of three years was imposed upon the petitioner. During this period, while the petitioner was working on the post of a constable, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 244 (2; of the Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, dated Aug. 28, 1976 and a Bank Draft in respect of three months' pay and allowances, in lieu of three months' previous notice was given to him. The petitioner has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement by means' of the present writ petition.

(2.) The first submission of learned counsel is that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner amounts to the imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension, as provided in Rule 14 (v) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955' Learned counsel argued that compulsory retirement of the petitioner, at the time when he was working on the post of a constable on account of his temporary reduction in rank for a period of three years, caused loss of earned benefits to the petitioner, because the amount payable to him by way of pension would thereby be reduced. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Parshottam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India (A I.R. 1958 Supreme Court 36) and Shyam Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R. 1954 Supreme Court 369) . In Purshottam Lal Dhiagra's case (supra), it was held by S.R. Das, C. J.

(3.) Another submission made by learned counsel was that Appendix-9 contained in the Rules (Volume II) has been amended by the order Ex. 4 dated Sept. 19, 1975 passed by the Governor in administrative capacity and that it was not a rule made under Art. 309 of the Constitution and as such the said amendment was illegal. This argument also deserves to be repelled. Rule 7 (6) of the Rules provides that a competent authority in relation to the exercise of any power means the Governor or any authority to which the power is delegated by or under the Rules Further, Rule 5 provides that the Government may delegate, to any of its officers subject to any conditions which it may think fit to impose, any power conferred upon or taken under the Rules. Thus, the Government was perfectly justified within its authority to delegate the power of compulsory retirement under Rule 244 (2) of the Rules to such officers and subject to such conditions as it deemed proper and the order of delegation by the Governor dated Sept. 19, 1975 is in accordance with the provision of Rule 7 (6) read with Rule 5 of the Rules. The delegation made under Appendix-9 to the Rules (Volume II) has been held to be valid by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Tara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 1487) .