- (1.) Aggrieved of impugned order dated 31st August, 2009, the petitioner has instituted the present writ application, praying for the following relief(s): "(a) That by appropriate orders, directions, writ or instructions the enquiry proceedings/disciplinary proceedings under memo dated 18.06.2009 and 24.08.2009 (in respect of the petitioner) (Annexure-2 and Annexure-4) and order dated 31.08.2009 (annexure-5) being arbitrary, capricious, unwarranted, and contrary to law be quashed and set aside. (b) That by appropriate writ, orders, instructions, directions respondents be directed to release all the post retiral benefits to the petitioner. (c) Any other relief which the Hon'ble High Court thinks just and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the humble petitioner may also be allowed. (d) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded to humble petitioner."
(2.) Briefly, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the petitioner, who initially entered into the State service as 'Drugs Inspector' in March, 1977, served in various Districts of the State of Rajasthan. He was accorded promotion as 'Assistant Drugs Controller' in the year 1996, and was posted at Alwar in the year 2002 and was lateron transferred to jaipur. The petitioner was proceeded with a Departmental enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, Rules of 1958'), while the petitioner retired on 31st August, 2009, attaining the age of superannuation. He was served with the communication/order of the even date wherein the State-respondents decided to convert the departmental proceedings initiated under Rule 17 to one under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958; having regard to the gravity of the alleged misconduct. The petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order/communication dated 31st August, 2009, served upon him on the date and day he retired, attaining the age of superannuation, without any prior notice. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. K.S. Garg and Ors., 2012 3 WLN(Raj) 549, which in turn has relied upon similar view of earlier Division Bench in the case of Dr. Kishansingh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1966 AIR(Raj) 55.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that the action of the State-respondents in converting the departmental proceedings initiated under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, vide memorandum dated 18th June, 2009, to one under Rule 16, is bad in the eye of law for the decision was taken in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, no notice was ever served on the petitioner while resorting to conversion of proceedings initiated under Rule 17 to Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958.;