Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) BY way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of the Govt. of Rajasthan dt. 09.11.2000 whereby in pursuance of Rule 53(1) of Raj. Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (Rules 1996) he was compulsorily retired on recommendation of the High Court. The facts & circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was selected in Rajasthan Judicial Service and appointed as Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate vide order dt. 05.06.1976 and on completion of period of probation was confirmed vide order dt. 09.06.1978 (Ann.2). The candidature of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of ACJM by the Full Court in its meeting dt. 31.07.1987, 27.05.1998 & 28.07.1989 in which he was not found fit because of his adverse service record. However, promoted to the post of ACJM vide order dt. 26.05.1990 and was further promoted in the RHJS cadre vide order dt. 26.05.1993.
(2.) WHILE the petitioner was working as an Officer of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, a Committee of four Hon'ble Judges of this Court was constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to consider the cases of such of the Judicial Officers of the State of Rajasthan for compulsory retirement obviously who qualified pre conditions contemplated under Rule 53(1) of Rules 1996 and the committee in its meeting held on 28/29.08.2000 considered the cases of good number of Judicial Officers including the petitioner and after examining overall assessment of service records, personal and other files of the officer arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner became liability to the judicial service and public interest warrants compulsory retirement of the officer and accordingly recommended for his compulsory retirement which was placed before the Full Court and after due deliberation and discussions and perusing the overall service record/ACRs it was resolved to accept the report of the Committee and recommended petitioner's compulsory retirement and consequently vide Govt. Order dt. 09.11.2000, the petitioner was compulsorily retired under Rule 53(1) of Rules 1996. The main thrust of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was under suspension at the relevant point of time when he was compulsorily retired facing departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 and keeping the departmental enquiry pending, a short cut method was adopted by the respondent in taking decision to compulsory retire the petitioner invoking Rule 53(1) of the Rules, 1996 and the action was wholly arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further submits that in view of Note -9 appended to Rule 53(1), an incumbent who is under suspension is supposed to be served a notice of three months and waiver of notice of three months by making payment of salary in lieu thereof is not permissible under the Scheme of Rules and the decision taken by the respondent in the case of petitioner of making payment of salary in lieu of notice of three months invoking Rule 53(1) in disregard of Note 9 appended thereto is per se bad in law and and the order of compulsory retirement deserves to be quashed.
(3.) COUNSEL submits that if he would have been served with notice of three months as regard decision being taken for compulsory retirement under Sec. 53(1) of the Rules, 1996, he has an opportunity to avail voluntary retirement from service in place of decision of compulsory retirement.;