DR.RAVINDRA MEHTA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of order dated 19.06.2017 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the Dy. Secretary, Medical and Health (Group-2) Department, Government of Rajasthan, whereby the prayer of the petitioner seeking voluntarily retirement from service w.e.f. 01.08.2017 stands rejected.

(2.) The facts relevant are that the petitioner entered the service of the respondent department on being appointed as Medical Officer on 21.08.1990. Looking to the satisfactory services, petitioner has been confirmed on the post of Medical Officer and later on petitioner has been promoted as Junior Specialist (Medicine) on 24.05.2001. On completion of 15 years of services, the petitioner submitted an application to the competent authority on 07.04.2017 under Rule 50 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"). The application submitted by the petitioner was forwarded by the Chief Medical Officer, Sagwara (Dungarpur) to the Director (Public Health), Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide communication dated 10.04.2017. The application preferred by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement has been rejected by the order impugned. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per decision of the Government of Rajasthan, permission to retire a Government servant may be refused only to such Government servant: (1) who is under suspension; (2) in whose case the disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, is of the view that such disciplinary proceedings might result in imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service; and (iii) in whose case prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law. Learned counsel submitted that none of the situations specified wherein permission to retire a Government servant could be withheld by the appointing authority exists in the petitioner's case and thus, by virtue of proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 50, the petitioner deserves to be treated as retired from Government service w.e.f. 01.08.2017. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this court in the matter of "Dr.Kalpana Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.", (S.B.C.Writ Petition No.4526/14, decided on 16.12.14).