MATHUR, J. - (1.) ON being appointed as Constable under an order dated 21. 5. 1985, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur, the petitioner joined Rajasthan Police on 23. 5. 1985. He suffered disciplinary action as per provisions of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (here-inafter referred to as the Rules of 1958) for the allegation of wilful absence from duties. After receiving report of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority by a notice dated 28. 6. 1993 sought explanation from the petitioner as to why he be not removed from service on being found guilty for remaining absent from duties willfully. A copy of the inquiry report was also furnished to the petitioner alongwith notice aforesaid. After considering explanation submitted by the petitioner the disciplinary authority vide order dated 6. 1. 1994 inflicted a penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension and deduction for a sum of Rs. 10/- per month from pension, however, by a corrigendum dt. 30. 1. 1994 the deduction of Rs. 10/- per month from pension was with-drawn. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 6. 1. 1994 came to be rejected by the appellate authority i. e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur on 25. 2. 1994. Hence, this petition for writ is preferred.
(2.) THE argument advanced by Shri P. K. Lohra, counsel for the petitioner is that under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1951) a government servant may receive pension only after completing qualifying service i. e. 20 years in present case and the petitioner, on the day he was subjected to punishment, completed only nine years of service, as such he was not entitled to receive pension. THE penalty of compulsory retirement, therefore, virtually amounts to removal from service. Per contra, it is urged on behalf of the respondents that the disciplinary authority is competent enough to inflict any penalty prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 including the penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension on determination of guilt for a misconduct. Though nothing is said in reply to the writ petition regarding entitlement of the petitioner for pension, however, in view of a reference given in the order impugned relating to Rule 172-A of the Rules of 1951, it is urged by counsel for the respondents that the pension of the petitioner may be determined as per the provisions referred above. It is the position admitted between the parties that after inflicting penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension, no pension is yet released by the respondents to the petitioner. No statutory provision or administrative instruction is brought to my knowledge making entitlement of a government servant facing penalty of compulsory retirement to receive pension, despite lacking qualifying service. Heard counsel for the parties. Can a government servant be subjected to a penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension despite lacking qualifying service necessary for receiving pension, is the issue requires consideration in this petition for writ.
(3.) UNDER Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958, four major penalties are prescribed and those are:- (i) reduction to a lower service, grade or post, or to a lower time scale or to lower stage in the time scale or in the case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules; (ii) compulsory retirement on proportionate pension; (iii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for further employment; (iv) dismissal from service, which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment. Out of four penalties referred above all the penalties except reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time scale results into termination from service. A government servant in the case of compulsory retirement shall be terminated from service but with pension. In the case of removal the government servant shall be out of employment but without having any disqualification for further employment and in the event of dismissal from service there shall be a disqualification for future employment. The dismissal is having severest consequences whereas the removal is having a consequence severe to compulsory retirement but lesser to penalty of dismissal from service. A person retired compulsorily as penalty shall be entitled for proportionate pension but the Rules of 1958 are not relevant for grant of determination of pension. The entitlement for pension at the relevant time was available under the Rules of 1951, thus, right of the petitioner deserves assessment under the rules aforesaid. Under the Rules of 1951 a superannuation would have been granted to a government servant on retirement as prescribed under Rules 56 and 56-A. The qualifying service for retirement from service voluntarily at the relevant time was of 20 years as per provisions of Rule 44 (1) of the Rules of 1951 and 25 years for compulsory retirement (simplicitor ). The proportionate pension to the persons having less than qualifying service is admissible in the event of transfer of a State Government employees to central autonomous bodies/statutory bodies and vice-versa or in the eventuality of conversion of government department/ office into a State autonomous body or public sector undertaking. No provision under the Rules of 1951 or otherwise for granting proportionate pension to a person lacking qualifying service, except in the two eventualities referred above is brought to my knowledge. ;