1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1384/2009 Rameshwar Lal Meena Versus The State of Rajasthan and others Date of order ::: February 09,2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Ashok Gaur, for the petitioner BY THE COURT (1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. (2) By this writ petition,the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.6.2007 (Anx.6) whereby he has been punished with the penalty of `compulsory retirement'. Although the words `compulsory retirement on proportionate pension' have not been mentioned but the punishment prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short `the Rules of 1958') is `compulsory retirement on proportionate pension'. The said punishment order was passed on initiation of enquiry vide memorandum dated 15.8.2006 on finding Charges No.2,3,4 and 5 relating to disorderly and misbehaviour as well as relating to moral conduct proved. Against the aforesaid punishment order, the petitioner filed an appeal wherein the finding on Charges No.1 and 2 has been affirmed without making any change in the punishment. (3) Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that a bare perusal of the enquiry report along with evidence would reveal 2 that the finding on the issue is either based on no evidence or perverse. (4) I have gone through the record of the writ petition more particularly enquiry report, punishment order dated 21.6.2007, order of the appellate authority dated 16.9.2008 and in my view, the appellate authority has taken right view on the findings recorded on Issue No.1 and 2 after discussing evidence and consideration of the same is neither perverse nor the finding on the same is based on no evidence or misreading of evidence. Further the Appellate Authority has rightly not disagreed with the same for the purpose of maintaining the punishment of compulsory retirement under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 considering the gravity of the said charges proved which rendered the petitioner unfit for further retention in service. The punishment of compulsory retirement is mentioned at Item No.(v) which is a major penalty and the same is mentioned as `compulsory retirement on proportionate pension'. (5) In view of the above discussion and position of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders of punishment and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with the above clarification of the position of Rule 14(v) of the Rules of 1958 on the matter of punishment. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA) J. गोपाल