Compulsory retirement of a government employee under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1955 is valid and does not violate the employee's rights under Article 311 of the Constitution, provided that the employee is not deprived of any earned benefits and the delegation of power to compulsorily retire the employee is valid.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was employed as a Head Constable by the order Ex. 1 with effect from April 4, 1950. While he was working as such, certain charges were levelled against him and by the order dated May 31, 1975, he was held guilty of grave irregularities and of making false entries in the police records. Consequently, the punishment of reduction in rank or demotion to the post of a Constable for a period of three years was imposed upon the petitioner. During this period, while the petitioner was working on the post of a constable, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 244 (2; of the Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, dated August 28, 1976 and a Bank Draft in respect of three months' pay and allowances, in lieu of three months' previous notice was given to him. The petitioner has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement by means' of the present writ petition.

2. The first submission of learned counsel is that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner amounts to the imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension, as provided in Rule 14 (v) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955' Learned counsel argued that compulsory retirement of the petitioner, at the time when he was working on the post of a constable on account of his temporary reduction in rank for a period of three years, caused loss of earned benefits to the petitioner, because the amount payable to him by way of pension would thereby be reduced. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Parshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (A I.R. 1958 Supreme Court 36) and Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R. 1954 Supreme Court 369) . In Purshottam Lal Dhiagra's case (supra), it was held by S.R. Das, C. J.

"Likewise the termination of service by compulsory&retirement in terms of a specific rule regulating the conditions of service is not tantamount to the instruction of a punishment and does not attract Art. 311(2)............It is true that the misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification may be the motive or the inducing factor which influences the Government to lake action under the terms of the contract of employment or the specific service rule, nevertheless, if a right exists, under the contract or the rules to terminate the service, the motive operating on the mind of the Government is,.........wholly irrelevant."
The petitioner was punished alter a proper enquiry and he was reduced in rank to' the post of a constable tor a period of three years, which resulted in the reduction of his pay and allowances and the loss of his seniority and postponement of his future chances of promotion. However, by the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner it cannot be said that he was visited with any evil consequences. The argument of the learned counsel is that had the petitioner not been compulsorily retired within this period of three years, during which he was demised to the post of a constable and would .have been retired thereafter, then he would have been enrolled to obtain the pension payable on the post of the Head Constable and even if the petitioner would have been retired prior to the infliction of the aforesaid punishment upon him, then also he would have received the pension payable to him as a Head Constable, the answer to this submission is simple. If the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation or would have expired or would have been otherwise incapacitated during the period he was working as constable, on account of the punishment imposed upon him earlier by the order dated May 31, 1975, in that event he would have received only such pension as was payable according to the rules applicable to him at the relevant time. Similar will be the situation on his com