KAPIL BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Medical and Health (Group-1) Department, Government of Rajasthan, whereby the prayer of the petitioner seeking voluntarily retirement from service w.e.f. 15.1.2018 stands rejected.

(2.) The facts relevant are that the petitioner entered the service of the department of the Medical and Health, Government of Rajasthan, after being selected by the RPSC, and was accorded regular appointment on the post of Lecturer (Cardiology) vide order dated 13.07.1996. On completion of 15 years of services, the petitioner submitted an application to the competent authority on 23.11.2017 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 Principal and Controller, Ravindranath Tagore Medical College, Udaipur to the Deputy Secretory, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide communication dated 29.11.2017. 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. 15.01.2018. 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 and Ors.", (S.B.C.Writ Petition No.4526/14, decided on 16.12.14).