BENCH AT JAIPUR v. Jaipur

: Mr. Babu Lal Gupta Advocate. For Respondents : None present. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 06/08/2025

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by order dated 20.06.2002 passed by the Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, whereby, petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Conductor vide order dated 30.05.1979 in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Corporation’). During his entire service tenure of 22 years, no charge sheet or enquiry whatsoever was issued/conducted against the petitioner, nor any enquiry was pending. Thus, the petitioner has always worked with honesty and sincerity. However, all of sudden, one order dated 20.06.2002 was issued by the respondent-Corporation, whereby, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired by mentioning [2025:RJ-JP:31600] (2 of 4) [CW-2996/2003] that he had completed 25 years of service and/or attained age of 50 years.

3. While assailing aforesaid order dated 20.06.2002, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no reason whatsoever has been assigned in impugned order dated 20.06.2002 for retiring the petitioner compulsorily, nor was he granted any opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the aforesaid order dated

20.06.2002.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that exercise of powers under 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’) is totally misplaced and the power has been exercised by the authority without there being any competence.

5. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents mentioning therein that the petitioner has not come out with clean hands. In his service tenure, as many as 24 charge sheets containing different charges were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was habitual of carrying passengers without tickets. Out of 24 charge sheets issued to the petitioner, enquiry in respect of 6 charge sheets was pending and in remaining 18 charge sheets, the petitioner was punished by awarding different penalties. Under these circumstances, powers under Clause 18D(1) of the Standing Orders of 1965 has rightly been exercised by the competent authority and it was a fit case for compulsory retirement.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. [2025:RJ-JP:31600] (3 of 4) [CW-2996/2003]

7. Bare perusal of the writ petition would reveal that the petitioner has categorically stated that his service career was unblemished as neither any charge sheet was issued to him, nor any enquiry was pending against him, whereas Schedule A appended to reply to writ petition would reveal that as many as 24 charge sheets were issued to the petitioner, mostly on account of carrying passengers without tickets. Six charge sheets were pending for conclusion whereas in other 18 charge sheets, the petitioner was punished with different penalties. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has deliberately and consciously suppressed the facts which are otherwise material for adjudication of the dispute relating to compulsory retirement. Hence, only on the ground of concealment of material facts, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsoever.

8. It is settled proposition of law that compulsory retirement is not 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 public interest. The petitioner in the instant case has not levelled any allegation of mala fides or 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. The order has been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of clause 18D(1) of the Standing Orders of 1965 and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. [2025:RJ-JP:31600] (4 of 4) [CW-2996/2003]

9. Underlying principles regulating the cases of compulsory retirement has 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 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.”

10. In the light of above and after examining the service record relating to penalties as given in Schedule A appended to the reply filed by the respondents, I am satisfied that the process of weeding out through compulsory retirement has rightly been adopted by the respondent-Corporation.

11. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed.

12. Pending application, if any, stands dismissed. MANOJ NARWANI / (ANAND SHARMA),J

: Mr. Babu Lal Gupta Advocate. For Respondents : None present. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 06/08/2025

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by order dated 20.06.2002 passed by the Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, whereby, petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Conductor vide order dated 30.05.1979 in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Corporation’). During his entire service tenure of 22 years, no charge sheet or enquiry whatsoever was issued/conducted against the petitioner, nor any enquiry was pending. Thus, the petitioner has always worked with honesty and sincerity. However, all of sudden, one order dated 20.06.2002 was issued by the respondent-Corporation, whereby, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired by mentioning [2025:RJ-JP:31600] (2 of 4) [CW-2996/2003] that he had completed 25 years of service and/or attained age of 50 years.

3. While assailing aforesaid order dated 20.06.2002, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no reason whatsoever has been assigned in impugned order dated 20.06.2002 for retiring the petitioner compulsorily, nor was he granted any opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the aforesaid order dated

20.06.2002.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that exercise of powers under 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’) is totally misplaced and the power has been exercised by the authority without there being any competence.

5. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents mentioning therein that the petitioner has not come out with clean hands. In his service tenure, as many as 24 charge sheets containing different charges were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was habitual of carrying passengers without tickets. Out of 24 charge sheets issued to the petitioner, enquiry in respect of 6 charge sheets was pending and in remaining 18 charge sheets, the petitioner was punished by awarding different penalties. Under these circumstances, powers under Clause 18D(1) of the Standing Orders of 1965 has rightly been exercised by the competent authority and it was a fit case for compulsory retirement.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. [2025:RJ-JP:31600] (3 of 4) [CW-2996/2003]

7. Bare perusal of the writ petition would reveal that the petitioner has categorically stated that his service career was unblemished as neither any charge sheet was issued to him, nor any enquiry was pending against him, whereas Schedule A appended to reply to writ petition would reveal that as many as 24 charge sheets were issued to the petitioner, mostly on account of carrying passengers without tickets. Six charge sheets were pending for conclusion whereas in other 18 charge sheets, the petitioner was punished with different penalties. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has deliberately and consciously suppressed the facts which are otherwise material for adjudication of the dispute relating to compulsory retirement. Hence, only on the ground of concealment of material facts, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsoever.

8. It is settled proposition of law that compulsory retirement is not 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 public interest. The petitioner in the instant case has not levelled any allegation of mala fides or 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. The order has been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of clause 18D(1) of the Standing Orders of 1965 and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. [2025:RJ-JP:31600] (4 of 4) [CW-2996/2003]

9. Underlying principles regulating the cases of compulsory retirement has 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 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.”

10. In the light of above and after examining the service record relating to penalties as given in Schedule A appended to the reply filed by the respondents, I am satisfied that the process of weeding out through compulsory retirement has rightly been adopted by the respondent-Corporation.

11. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed.

12. Pending application, if any, stands dismissed. MANOJ NARWANI / (ANAND SHARMA),J