Nayakheda, Jaipur v. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary To The

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary To The Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Board Of Revenue Through Its Registrar, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Akshit Gupta with Mr. Nakul Bansal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC with Ms. Deepa Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 28/05/2025 For the reasons stated in the application No.1/2022 filed for taking on record the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner-Shri Narain Singh, which is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, the same is allowed. The legal representatives of the deceased-petitioner as also the amended cause title appended with the application are taken on record. [2025:RJ-JP:22509] (2 of 5) [CW-3319/2002] At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the relief No.1. The writ petition is dismissed qua the relief No.1. Under challenge in the writ petition is the order dated

27.03.2002 passed by the respondents whereby, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, Shri Narain Singh, (for brevity, “the delinquent employee”), working as Tehsildar at the relevant time, was compulsorily retired under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, “the Rules of 1996”) from the date of expiry of the period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. The relevant facts are in very narrow compass. The delinquent employee was appointed as Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 21.02.1980 and vide order dated 25.01.1982, he was promoted as Tehsildar. Vide order impugned dated 27.03.2002, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the delinquent employee made two fold submissions. Firstly, he submitted that he could not have been compulsorily retired during the suspension period. Next, he contended that the basis of compulsory retirement was pendency of 4 criminal cases wherein, at a later stage, he was acquitted wiping out the whole basis of the order impugned. He submits that in view thereof, the order dated 27.03.2002 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 27.03.2002 be quashed and set aside and the petitioners be paid all consequential benefits. [2025:RJ-JP:22509] (3 of 5) [CW-3319/2002] Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, inviting attention of this Court towards the contents of reply filed by them, would submit that as many as 14 criminal cases were pending against the delinquent employee at the relevant time besides 3 departmental enquiries under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, “the Rules of 1958”). She submits that vide order dated

12.05.2000, a punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with non-cumulative effect was inflicted upon the delinquent employee and a preliminary enquiry No.112/2000 was also pending against him and in view of the aforesaid conspectus, a decision was taken to compulsorily retire him. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. The delinquent employee was compulsorily retired vide order impugned dated 27.03.2002 under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 which reads as under:

53. Compulsory retirement on completion of 15 years qualifying service. (1) At any time, after a Government servant has completed 15 years qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, the appointing authority, upon having been satisfied that the concerned government servant has on account of his indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of official duties, has lost his utility, may require the concerned Government servant to retire in public interest after following the procedure laid down by [2025:RJ-JP:22509] (4 of 5) [CW-3319/2002] the Government in Department Personnel/Administrative Reforms Department. In case of such retirement, the Government servant shall be entitled to retiring pension. It may be pertinent to note here that it is not in dispute that the primary conditions precedent for exercising the power under Rule 53(1) were satisfied. This Court finds no merit in the first limb of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the suspension period, the delinquent employee could not have been compulsorily retired. The scheme of the Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 does not stipulate that unless suspension of the subject employee is revoked, no order of compulsory retirement can be passed. Rather, as per the provisions of Rule 53(1), if a Government servant is, inter alia, of doubtful integrity or, incompetent to discharge official duties or, inefficient in due performance of the official duties, he can be compulsory retired which, by implication, presumes pendency of the disciplinary proceedings as well for the aforesaid reasons entailing suspension. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also misconceived and does not merit acceptance. As is revealed from the contents of para No.4 of the reply filed by the respondents, in addition to pendency of 14 criminal cases/investigation against the delinquent employee under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was facing 3 charge-sheets under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, had suffered one punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect and a preliminary enquiry No.112/2000 was also pending against him at the relevant time. It is trite law [2025:RJ-JP:22509] (5 of 5) [CW-3319/2002] that the entire service record of the delinquent employee, on the date of consideration of his case for compulsory retirement, is the relevant material and not the subsequent development. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. YOGESH/9 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J