GUPTA, J - (1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as an Overseer in the former State of Jaipur on July 26, 1947. He was appointed substantively as an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) of the State of Raj-asthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the P. W. D. ') by an order dated August 17/20, 1953 after he was selected for the aforesaid post by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In May, 1955, seven officers of the P. W. D. were suspended for negligence for defective plastering of a school building at Gangapur City and after a departmental enquiry although the other officers were re-instated without any punishment, but punishment was inflicted upon the the petitioner and three grade increments were stopped without cumulative effect by the order dated November 13, 1956.
(2.) THE petitioner was subsequently promoted as Executive Engineer in the P. W. D. of the State on May 10, 1958 and he was confirmed in that capacity by an order dated July 4, 1961 with effect from July 1, 1959. THE petitioner was thereafter promoted as officiating Superintending Engineer on June 28, 1965 and was posted at Bikaner. By an order of the State Government dated July 24, 1970, a recorded warning was administered to the petitioner on the ground that he changed the road alignment without prior sanction of the Chief Engineer during the year 1961 and the petitioner's explanation that he did so to effect economy in the expenditure was rejected. In the year 1961-1962, the then Chief Engineer of the P. W. D. made adverse entries in the confidential rolls of the petitioner, against which he made a representation and the State Government expunged a part of those adverse remarks made by the Chief Engineer by its order dated August 2, 1969, yet another part of such remarks was confirmed by the State Government by its aforesaid order. THEn again adverse entries were made in the confidential rolls of the petitioner for the year 1963-1964. THE petitioner made representations against the aforesaid adverse entries also, but the State Government by its order dated July 13, 1970, refused to expunge the same. THE petitioner's case is that the then Chief Engineer Mr. B. D. Mathur was annoyed with the petitioner and in support of his contention, the petitioner relied upon the remarks dated August 30, 1964 made by Shri Gordhan Singh, the then Secretary of the P. W. D. The petitioner was transferred to Ganganagar as Superintending Engineer in the year 1971. The petitioner's case is that during the period of his tenure as Superintending Engineer at Ganganagar, he incurred the displeasure of Kuldipsingh and Jaspalsingh, who were influential contractors of that place and who had been given contracts for the execution of several works in Ganganagar area, both on behalf of the Rajasthan Government as well as the Government of India (Ministry of Transport ). According to the petitioner, he suggested changes in the bridge work regarding the construction of diversion channel of Suratgarh branch of the Rajasthan Canal which reduced the cost of construction by about Rs. 30. 000/- and that he also objected to excess payment of about Rs. 7,00,000/- to the above mentioned contractors in respect of the construction of Hanumangarh-Suratgarh road and directed the Executive Engineer to stop further payment until the work was checked by the latter and he felt satisfied about the same. The petitioner has submitted that inspite of his aforesaid instructions, the then Executive Engineer, Shri Daljit Singh made an over payment to the tune of Rs. 1. 5 lacs to the concerned contractors without submitting any explanation. The petitioner has further submitted that the contractors, Kuldip Singh and his brother Jaspalsingh wielded considerable influence over Shri J. S. Metha, the then P. W. D. Secretary and the late Chief Minister of Rajasthan, Shri Barkatullah Khan and that the aforesaid contractors told the petitioner that they had helped Shri Khan in his election. According to the petitioner, as he refused to succumb to the allurements and threats of the aforesaid contractors, he was transferred from Ganganagar to Kota on May 1, 1972. It is also alleged that this transfer of the petitioner from Sri Ganganagar had wide repercussions and some members of the opposition parties in the State Legislative Assembly raised the question of the alleged over-payments made to the aforesaid contractors and the transfer of the petitioner on the floor of the House and it was alleged in the Legislative Assembly that several lacs of rupees were paid by the contractor Kuldipsingh for election work to the then Minister-in-Charge of the P. W. D. but this allegation was denied by the Minister concerned on the floor of the House. A complaint was made by some members of the Legislative Assembly against the petitioner on which a preliminary enquiry was ordered by the State Government against him in respect of the alleged irregularities. Shri V. N. Kalla, the then Additional Chief Engineer P- W D. was entrusted on June 6, 1972 with the task of making the aforesaid preliminary enquiry. Shri Kalla submitted a report in respect of some of the items referred to him for enquiry on July 22, 1972 and further enquiry in respect of the aforesaid complaint was thereafter entrusted to Shri Adiyappa, another Additional Chief Engineer of the Department. On September 2, 1972, an order was issued by the State Government under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules ( hereinafter called 'the Rules'), where in it was stated that the petitioner had completed 25 years' qualifying service and that the State Government was satisfied that it was in public interest to dispense with further service of the petitioner and directed that the petitioner would be ccmpulsorily retired with effect from the date of the expiry of three calendar months from the service of the notice on him. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the aforesaid order of his compulsory retirement dated September 2, 1972. In the first instance larned counsel for the petitioner assailed the validity of the provisions of Rule 244 (2) of the Rules However, the question of validity of the aforesaid provisions was exhaustively considered by the present Chief Justice, Hon'ble Shinghal J. in Deep Chand Jain vs. State of Rajasthan (1) and it was held in that case that compulsory retirement under Rule 244 (2) could not be ordered by way of punishment and that there are ample safeguards in the aforesaid sub rule (2) of Rule 244, read with Note 1 appended to it against the exercise of the power of compulsory retirement in an arbitrary manner and further that necessary guidelines have been provided therein by the rule making authority. It has been further pointed out by his Lordship in that case that by compulsory retirement, the employee concerned does not lose any of the benefits which he had already earned, and which he would have lost by way of dismissal or removal and that no charge or imputation was made against the employee concerned while exercising the power of compulsory retirement. The matter relating to the vires of Rule 244 (2) does not require any turther consideration inasmuch as it has been thoroughly considered by this Court in Deepchand's case (1) and I am in respectful agreement with the decision in the aforesaid case. It may also be pointed out that a special appeal was preferred in Deepchand's case (1) (being D. B. Special Appeal No. 12 of 1973), which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on July 5, 1974 and the Division Bench agreed with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge in their entirety.
(3.) THE provisions of Rule 244 (2) of the Rules were also examined recently by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Tarasingh vs. State of Rajasthan (Writ Petition No. 1253 of 1973, decided on March 19, 1975 ). In the above mentioned case, Ray C J. , speaking for the Court, observed as follows - "the right to be in public employment is a right to hold it according to rules. THE rule speaks of compulsory retirement. THEre is guidance in the rules as to when such compulsory retirement is made. When persons complete 25 years of service and the efficiency of such persons is impaired and yet it is desirable not to bring any charge of inefficiency or incompetency, the Government passes orders of such compulsory retirement. THE Government servant in such a case does not lose the benefits which a Govern ment servant has already earned. THEse orders of compulsory retirement are made in public interest. This is the safety valve of making such orders so that no arbitrariness or bad faith creeps in. " The next submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that leave for a period of more than 120 days was due to the petitioner and that the petitioner was deprived of his right to obtain leave for the period for which it was due. However, learned Deputy Government Advocate stated at the Bar that in case the petitioner was entitled to more leave, the State Government is prepared to grant leave salary to the petitioner for such period as may be found due to him in accordance with the Rules. In Deepchand's case, a similar statement made on behalf of the State Government was considered sufficient and it was held that in view of such a statement, the argument of the larned counsel for the petitioner did not require further consideration. The observations made in Deepchand's case are fully applicable to the present case in this respect and this submission, therefore, does not require any further consideration. Then learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure prescribed in the notification of the State Government dated June 19. 1972, which was in force at the relevant time, was not followed and relying upon the order of delegation dated December 13, 1963 it was argued that the delegation was made subject to the condition that the prescribed procedure was to be strictly followed. The submi-sion of the learned counsel in this respect is without any substance because the power of compulsory retirement of a Government servant has been vested in the State Government, under the provisions of Rule 244 (2) and by the order of delegation dated December 13, 1963, the said power has been delegated to the State Government itself. This power, vested in the State Government in pursuance of the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 still continued to vest in the State Government itself even after the order of delegation dated December 13, 1963, was issued, so far as the cases of persons holding posts in State service, like the petitioner were concerned In the present case the power of compulsory retirement has been exercised by the State Government itself and, therefore, there is no illegality on that ground in the present case. ;