- (1.) THIS is a writ petition by one Sibal Singh, who was a sub-inspector of police in the State of Raj as than and by it he questions the validity of the order of his compulsory retirement dated 21 August 1935 (Ex 37 on record), issued under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1952. He also prays for an appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondent. The relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows: The petitioner joined the service in the erstwhile Jodhpur State in the Police Department as a constable on 13 April 1934. He claims that on account of his hard and honest work ha was promoted first as a head constable and then as an officiating sub-inspector in 1917. He says that he also received sanad and cash rewards for his good work from time to time. On the formation of Rajasthan he came to be confirmed as a sub-inspector of police on 16 August 1952 under orders of the inspector-General of Police. He submits that, as sub-inspector, his work was appreciated by his superiors and he has produced a number of sanade and letters of commendation in this behalf. He goes on to say that while he was posted in the direct of Sirohi in 1961, he fell foul of the then Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, Sri K. N. Gupta, and misfortune befell the petitioner as a result of Sri Gupta's displeasure. According to him, several enquiries were instituted against him and also some adverse remarks cams to be made in his confidential roll. According to the petitioner, as a result of his representation to the Government, several of the enquiries instituted by Sri K. N. Gupta were set aside and regarding some others, four or fire, the matter was pending at the time of his compulsory retirement. Ha also submitted representation against the adverse entries recorded in his service record. The petitioner makes grievance of the fact that even though certain enquiries were still pending and the petitioner had also made his representations which were not disposed of, hit papers in this behalf were forwarded to the scrutiny committee which was to screen the cases for compulsory retirement and eventually he was vistited with the order of compulsory retirement, Ex. 37.
(2.) THE petitioner questions the validity of the order of his compulsory retirement (Ex. 37) on a number of grounds. The first ground is that Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules is ultra vires of the Constitution as the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as it denied equality of opportunity to the petitioner to serve the state and also it gave arbitrary powers to the Government to pick and choose persons for compulsory retirement, simply because one has been in the service of the state for the requisite period of 25 years and it thus vests unguided discretion in the Government, The second ground of attack is that the action was actuated by mala fides as the enquiries started by Sri K. N. Gupta were still pending against the petitioner. It in next urged that the petitioner had completed thirty years of service and, therefore, his case could not have been scrutinized at the time it was done, as he had long passed the limit of 25 years. It was then contended that the impugned order was bad as the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Jodhpur Range, not being the appointing authority in the case of the petitioner, was not competent to pass the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. It is maintained that it was the Government who alone could have passed the order. In the regard it is averred that the case of the petitioner had not been scrutinized by the Government according to the Business Rules of the Government and the proposal had not gone to the Chief Minister or Governor and the latter had thus not applied their minds to the case. Lastly, it is submitted that the powers of the Government under Rule 244 (2) could not have been delegated to subordinate authorities.
(3.) THE writ petition has been opposed on behalf of the respondents and it is submitted that the order of the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was actually passed by the Government though it was communicated through the Inspector-General of Police by the Government and the Inspector-General of Police in his turn directed the Deputy Inspector-General of Police to comply with the orders of the Government.;