TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1963 (1) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d rejected the representation. The Government ordered on September 2, 1960 that the order of April 11, 1960 regarding compulsory retirement should be put into immediate effect. The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court and contended inter alia that the Inspector General of Police had no authority to order his compulsory retirement under r. 244 (2) of the Service Rules. He also contended that the order amounted to punishment within the meaning of r. 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, control and appeal) Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Classification Rules), and therefore as it was passed without giving him an opportunity to show cause as required under Art. 311 of the Constitution, it was bad. The petition was opposed on behalf of the state of Rajasthan and it was contended that' an order of compulsory retirement under r. 244 - (2) of the Service Rules was not a punishment within, the meaning of the Classification Rules, and therefore -Art. 311 had no application to it. It was also urged that the order had been passed by the Government and not by the Inspector General of Police, who had merely acted in issuing the order und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to be submitted to the Governor under r. 31(vii) (a) of the Business Rules. There are three kinds of compulsory retirement provided in the various rules relating to services in Rajasthan. Firstly, compulsory retirement on proportionate pension is provided as a penalty under r. 14 of the Classification Rules and this can be ordered whatever may be the length of service of a civil servant. Secondly, compulsory retirement is provided by r. 56 of the Service Rules as a matter of course on a civil servant reaching the age of super annuation, namely, 5.5 years. And thirdly, compulsory retirement may be ordered under. r. 244(2) of the Service Rules which provides that the Government retains an absolute right to retire any government servant after he has completed 25 years of qualifying service without giving any reason and no' claim to special compensation on this account will be entertained. This right however will not be exercised except when it is in public interest to dispense with the further service of a government servant. The contention on behalf of the respondent in the High Court was that all kinds of compulsory retirement have to be referred to Governor under r. 31 (vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relating to orders passed under item (vii)(a) for dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. Now there can hardly be any reason for a review petition in the case of compulsory retirement on reaching the age of superannuation 'i.e. 55 years under r. 56. of the Service Rules. We further find that review petitions are provided under the Classification Rules in Part VII and r. 34 of the Classification Rules in particular provides for Governor's powers to review. It is obvious that when cl. (b) speaks of a review petition, it must be referring to the review under Part VII of the Classification Rules. Clause (b) therefore which is confined to cases under cl. (a) which speaks of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, shows that all these are penalties as provided in r. 14 of the Classification Rules. Further cl. (c) provides that "where, on review the Governor decides to enhance the penalty already imposed and the enhanced penalty -is one of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of an officer" the matter must I be referred to the Governor. This clause makes it perfectly clear that the compulsory retirement referred to therein is a case of penalty and there can in our....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, and as it is not in that form there is in law no order of the Government ordering the compulsory retirement of the respondent. The order is in these terms "The following Inspectors of Police are compulsorily retired from the Government service under Rule 244 (2) of P.S.R. ..........................................." (2) Shri Sripal Jain s/o Shri Sohanlal, C.I. Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur. ............................................" There is no doubt that this order is not in the form required under Art. 166 of the Constitution. But it is well settled that any defect of form in the order would not necessarily make it illegal and the only consequence of the order not being in proper form as required by Art. 166 is that the burden is thrown on 'the Government to show that the 'order was in fact passed by it. It has been stated on behalf of the appellants that the order in question was communicated by the Inspector General of Police on the direction of the Government. It will be noticed that the order is in the passive voice. It does not say in the active voice that the Inspector General of Police ordered the retirement of the officers mentioned....