IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in compulsory retirement cases, ruling that arbitrary actions without substantial evidence are impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

(Dinesh Mehta, J.)

1. Instant writ petition lays challenge to the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 – Joint Secretary, General Administration (Group-V) Department, whereby the petitioner has been compulsory retired by invoking rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Pension Rules, 1996’).

2. The case at hands is a classic case of inappropriate, if not abuse, of the powers, which the Rule making authority chose to confer upon the State Government. The power which has been delegated to deal with really grave cases - when an employee becomes deadwood for the department, has been used to divest itself of an employee, who has been litigating against the department and to their dismay, succeeding in almost every case.

3. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner navigated the Court through the record of the case and submitted that the petitioner, who hails from West Bengal, got selected on the post of Manager Garde-II vide order dated 06.01.1998. According to him, the petitioner has been discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and diligence and every thing went on well until he was posted in Sirohi, when his subordinate staff including Accounts Staff did not cooperate and refused to pay the bills of the vendors.

4. The petitioner had to meet out the expense out of his own pocket or by taking loan from his old aged pensioner father and his wife. When the due amount swelled to a point beyond his means, he requested and wrote letters to the State Government to ensure that payment of due bills is made and precisely this was the reason, the atmosphere turned hostile against him.

5. Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards various representations, which the petitioner had made before the State Government and contended that having spent such a huge amount (approx. Rs.22 Lakhs) from his own sources, simply because the petitioner corresponded with the State Government, he has been accused of indiscipline.

6. He stated that another incident was when the local MLA (Ota Ram Devasi) expressed his displeasure qua him, that too when the petitioner asked him (MLA) to make payment for the two rooms of Circuit House, which he kept occupied for two years, without even paying a single penny. He got annoyed by such insistence and made a complaint.

7. He added that another incident can be the incident when he allegedly provided unclean and untidy room to the Chairman of Rajasthan State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, while he was in Dungarpur.

8. Learned counsel asserted that except these two trivial incidents, no complaint was ever made against the petitioner and that is why, when the list of persons to be considered for promotion on the post of Deputy General Manager was being prepared, petitioner’s particulars and credentials were sent to the State Government.

9. But to the dismay of the petitioner, in order to give promotion to a blue eyed person (Harish Kumar Kulshreshtha) of the respondents, a circuitous way was devised and by way of misusing the powers under rule 53 of the Pension Rules, 1996, the petitioner has been made to retire.

10. It was informed that the petitioner made a representation against the order dated 29.07.2024 and stated that he has been compulsorily retired in order to give way to said Harish Kumar Kulshreshtha, who was just below him in the seniority. But by the time it could be heeded to, petitioner’s apprehension turned out to be true, as immediately after compulsorily retiring the petitioner, on 22.08.2024, said Harish Kumar Kulshreshtha was promoted.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon following judgments:-

(i) Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr., reported in (1992) 2 SCC 299.

(ii) State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Ram Chandra Das, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 331.

(iii) I.K. Mishra vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (1997) 6 SCC 228.

(iv) Nand Kumar Verma vs. State o