Post Jindoli Tehsil Mandawar District Alwar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its

Judgment

4. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. Executive Director (Traffic) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation., Jaipur. Chief Manager, (CBS) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sindhi Camp, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Mahendra Shah Mr. Shreyansh Dhriwal Mr. Kamlesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 27/08/2025 Order

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 19.06.2002 passed by the Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, in Application No.DOP/AR/HQ/20020609, whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Corporation’). It was stated that the impugned [2025:RJ-JP:34126] (2 of 6) [CW-4342/2002] order dated 19.06.2002 issued by the Manager of the respondent- Corporation, whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired, while narrating that he had completed 25 years of service and/or attained the age of 50 years.

3. While assailing the aforesaid order dated 19.06.2002, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the impugned order dated

19.06.2002 for retiring the petitioner compulsorily, and he further submits that prior to passing of the aforesaid order, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. He further submits that the power for compulsorily retiring an employee can only be invoked in cases of medically unfit persons or to chop off dead- wood. Therefore, the reasons recorded in the impugned order for compulsory retirement is not in accordance with the established law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order dated 19.06.2002 and submitted that the Clause 18D(1) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Standing Orders of 1965’) confers the right to the respondents to pass such an order. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not disputed or assailed the validity of Clause 18D(1) of ‘the Standing Orders of 1965’.

5. He further submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands as during his service tenure, as many as 17 charge-sheets containing different charges were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was habitual of carrying passengers without tickets. Under the said circumstances, powers under [2025:RJ-JP:34126] (3 of 6) [CW-4342/2002] Clause 18D(1) of 'the Standing Orders of 1965’ were rightly invoked by the competent authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Before proceeding further, it is apt to reproduce Clause 18D(1) of ‘the Standing Orders of 1965’ below:- "Compulsory Retirement: Notwithstanding anything contained in the regulation the Corporation, may if is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the Corporation to do so have the absolute right to retire any Corporation employee after he has attained the age of 50 years or on the date he completes 25 years of service which ever is earlier, or on any date there after, by giving him 3 months, notice in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu there of."

8. Since the petitioner has not disputed or assailed the validity of Clause 18D(1) of 'the Standing Orders of 1965’ and at the same time encashed the cheque given to him by the respondents, without any protest, therefore, the argument advanced by the petitioner, that the order impugned is unsustainable in the eyes of law, cannot be accepted.

9. It is a settled proposition of law that compulsory retirement is neither a punishment nor can be said to be a stigma. It is an administrative exercise, in order to weed out ineffective and inefficient employees in the public interest. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has not levelled any allegation of mala fides or [2025:RJ-JP:34126] (4 of 6) [CW-4342/2002] extraneous considerations while passing the impugned order. Hence, the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being quite limited, this Court finds that no procedural error has been committed by the respondent- Corporation in issuing the impugned order dated 19.06.2002 passed by the Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur. The impugned order has been passed under the provisions of clause 18D(1) of 'the Standing Orders of 1965' and does not suffer from any arbitrariness, perversity, or any legal infirmity.

10. It is pertinent to mention that the underlying principles regulating the cases of compulsory retirement have been propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 (3)SCC 314, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead-wood, but the order of compulsory [2025:RJ-JP:34126] (5 of 6) [CW-4342/2002] retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.”

11. In light of the above, and after careful examination of pleadings of the parties, including the service record in Annexure- R1 appended to the reply filed by the respondents, which indicates that as many as 17 charge-sheets were issued to the petitioner, mostly on account of carrying passengers without a ticket. This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent has issued the order dated 19.06.2002 for better administration, to chop off of the dead-wood or to weed out ineffective and inefficient employees in public interest, in terms of powers conferred under Clause 18D(1) of 'the Standing Orders of 1965’.

12. Accordingly, this Court finds no reasonable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.06.2002 passed by the Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport [2025:RJ-JP:34126] (6 of 6) [CW-4342/2002] Corporation, Jaipur and therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.

13. All other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SOURAV /11 (MANEESH SHARMA),J