Independent revisional power and compulsory retirement under service rules upheld where statutory conditions were satisfied.

Section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 conferred independent revisional power on both the State Government and the Registrar, and the prior order of the Additional Registrar did not exhaust the State Government's jurisdiction. The statutory scheme distinguished appeals from revisions, and the State Government had not delegated its revisional authority away. The revision was therefore maintainable and not vitiated for want of jurisdiction. On the service issue, Rule 244(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 authorised compulsory retirement in public interest after the prescribed service conditions were met; as the employee satisfied those conditions and the rule applied, the retirement order was valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government could entertain the revision under Section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 after the Additional Registrar had dealt with the matter. (ii) Whether the order of compulsory retirement could be sustained on the applicable service rules.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government could entertain the revision under Section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 after the Additional Registrar had dealt with the matter.

Analysis: Section 128 vested revisional power in both the State Government and the Registrar. The scheme of the Act also drew a distinction between appeals and revisions under Sections 123, 124 and 125. Delegation does not denude the principal of authority in every situation, but the earlier order passed by the Additional Registrar was not treated as an exercise of revisional power by the State Government itself. The State Government had not delegated its revisional power to the Additional Registrar, and the statutory structure permitted the State Government to examine the matter independently.

Conclusion: The revision before the State Government was maintainable and its decision could not be said to suffer from lack of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the order of compulsory retirement could be sustained on the applicable service rules.

Analysis: Rule 244(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 authorised compulsory retirement in public interest after the prescribed length of service or attainment of the relevant age. The service rules were found applicable to the employee society, and the challenged order was made on that footing. The material showed that the employee had completed the requisite service conditions and the retirement order was passed in accordance with the governing service regime.

Conclusion: The order of compulsory retirement was valid and could not be interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both jurisdictional and substantive grounds, and the High Court's view was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute confers revisional power on two distinct authorities, exercise of such power by one does not exhaust the independent jurisdiction of the other, and a compulsory retirement order made under the applicable service rules in public interest will stand when issued in accordance with the governing statutory framework.

---