Dayanand Colony, Ram Nagar, Ajmer v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector (Land Records), Ajmer (Rajasthan).

2. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Samadaria Mr. Arihant Samadaria For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 02/05/2025 (Per Hon. Anand Sharma)J.

1. This Special Appeal (Writ) has been filed by the appellant- non-petitioner against judgment dated 08.04.2022 passed by the writ Court in SBCWP No. 7858/2004 whereby writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan against order dated 31.08.2004 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeal No. 1513/2001 has been allowed and order dated 31.08.2004 passed by learned Tribunal, for quashing the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant dated 21.09.2000, has been set aside.

2. Facts in brief are that the appellant was appointed on the post of Patwari in respondent-Department on 01.05.1974. His

services were confirmed w.e.f. 29.10.1979. On completion of nine years of service, the appellant was granted benefits of First [2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (2 of 13) [SAW-806/2022] Selection Grade w.e.f. 05.06.1992. Thereafter, as per appellant, he was selected and appointed on the post of Land Record Inspector on 31.08.1992 on probation. On completion of probation period, appellant was confirmed on the post of Land Record Inspector.

3. Mr. Sunil Samdaria, learned counsel for the appellant submits that a Screening Committee was constituted for examining record of as many as 19 employees of the respondent-Department for the purpose of compulsory retirement, out of which three were holding the post of Land Record Inspectors and remaining 16 were Patwaries. Recommendation of Screening Committee was further scrutinized by the Review Committee and thereafter recommendation was made for compulsory retirement of as many as 11 employees including the appellant. On the basis of such recommendation, order dated 21.09.2000 was passed by the District Collector (Land Records), Ajmer, whereby in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pensions) Rules, 1996 on completion of 15 years of service, premature retirement was given to the appellant in public interest with effect from the date of receipt of the order. Along with the order, Bank Draft of three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice was also enclosed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that feeling aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2000, appellant filed appeal No.1513/2001 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. In the aforesaid Appeal, following prayers were made:- [2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (3 of 13) [SAW-806/2022] “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your honor may graciously be pleased to accept this appeal and allow passing other necessary order in the nature thereof:- reinstate the appellant with all consequential i) benefits; quashing and setting aside the orders dated ii) 21.09.2000 (Annex.-10) Cost of the appeal may be awarded to the iii) appellant. Any other appropriate order which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the appellant.”

5. Learned counsel further submits that the Appellate Tribunal after hearing both the parties to the appeal, quashed order of compulsory retirement dated 21.09.2000 with further direction to reinstate the appellant in service by maintaining continuity in service along with all other consequential benefits.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the Tribunal was put to challenge by the State of Rajasthan by way of filing SBCWP No. 7858/2004 before the writ Court, however, in the meantime on account of setting aside the order of compulsory retirement by the Tribunal, the appellant was allowed to join in the Department on

04.09.2004.

7. Vide order dated 05.04.2005, the writ Court stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the Tribunal and as a consequence thereof, the District Collector passed order dated 15.04.2005 treating the appellant to have been compulsorily retired. Later on the writ Court finally allowed [2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (4 of 13) [SAW-806/2022] SBCWP No.7858/2004 vide impugned judgment dated

08.04.2022.

8. While pressing his Appeal against the judgment of the writ Court, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that writ Court has erroneously interfered with the order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the Tribunal without properly examining the facts of the case, material on record and law prevailing for the time being in force. Whereas after examining the record meticulously, the Tribunal has found the order of compulsory retirement to be arbitrary and illegal, for the reason that the order was passed by the competent authority in quite hot-haste and only by blindly relying upon the recommendation made by the Screening Committee without there being any independent application of mind of its own.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that since the penalties and the adverse entries in ACRs against the appellant have been declared as ineffective by the Tribunal vide its order dated 31.08.2004, therefore the Tribunal has committed no mistake in quashing the order of compulsory retirement dated

21.09.2000.

10. Learned counsel for the Appellant has also indicated that it was argued before the writ Court that he has been subjected to hostile discrimination, in the manner that other employees namely Shri Biram Ram Bhatt, Kayam Ali and Madan Lal Ajmera, despite having much worse service record than the appellant, have yet retained in service by the Government, [2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (5 of 13) [SAW-806/2022] whereas, on the other hand, the appellant has been retired at premature stage by issuing order of compulsory retirement dated

21.09.2000, only on the basis of minor penalties in his service record. However, the writ Court has not appreciated the aforesaid contention in right perspective. The appellant has prayed for quashing judgment dated 08.04.2022 passed by the writ Court and to confirm order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the Tribunal.

11. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record.

12. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that in a span of 26 years of service, as many as 19 penalties were imposed upon the appellant after holding departmental enquiries in accordance with the Rules. Details of such penalties have been extracted by the writ Court in its judgment dated

08.04.2022 in the following manner:- “Sr.No. Date Punishment under Provision Punishment

10.12.1976 Rule 17 of CCA Rules

31.12.1977 Rule 15 (2) of LR Rules

15.03.1978 Rule 17 of CCA Rules

13.04.1978 Rule 15 (2) of LR Rules Censure Warning Censure Warning

28.01.1981 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Writt.Warning

05.11.1982 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Censure

10.11.1982 Rule 17 of CCA Rules

22.07.1982 Rule 17 of CCA Rules

22.07.1982 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect Stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect Stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect [2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (6 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]

03.05.1983 Rule 17 of CCA Rules

01.04.1983 Rule 15(2) of LR Rules Censure Censure

05.02.1982 Rule 15(2) of LR Rules Recd. Warning

30.11.1985 Rule 15(2) of LR Rules Recd. Warning

20.03.1986 Rule 15(2) of LR Rules Recd. Warning

26.09.1994 Rule 16 of CCA Rules Stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect

11.02.1997 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Recorded Warn.

13.08.1991 Rule 16 of CCA Rules Censure

20.07.1999 Rule 17 of CCA Rules

27.03.1996 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect. Stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect.”

13. Apart from above, it has also been recorded by the writ Court that in addition to aforesaid 19 penalties, appellant was also having adverse entries in his APARs for the year 1988-89.

14. After referring to the details of the penalties, the writ Court has observed that passing order of compulsory retirement in exercise of Rule 53(i) of the Rules of 1996 is indeed an exercise to weed out the dead wood from the Department after following procedure of screening by the Committee. During such exercise, the entire record of the incumbent can be taken into consideration which includes penalties as well as adverse entries in APARs. Looking to the large number of penalties consistently imposed upon the appellant as well as adverse entries in his APARs, the writ Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that on account of his below average performance the appellant has lost his utility in the Department and therefore, it was in public interest to issue order of compulsory retirement. [2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (7 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]

15. While examining the validity of the order of compulsory retirement, the writ Court has relied upon judgments delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer and Anr., reported in 1992(2) SCC 299; Union of India & Ors. v. Dulal Dutt, reported in 1993(2) SCC179; Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in 2020 (1) SCC 801; Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in2010 (10) SCC 693; and Central Industrial Security Force v. HC (GD) Om Prakash reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 128, State of Punjab Vs. Gurudas Singh reported in 1998(4) SCC 92, State of U.P. And Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal, reported in 1994 (Supp) 3 SCC 593, State of Gujarat and Ors. Vs. Suryakant Chunnilal Shah, reported in 1998 (8) JT 326, Madan Mohan Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1999 (1) JT 459 and other judgments.

16. On the basis of principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the writ Court has observed that it was a fit case for exercising powers to compulsory retire the appellant whose record speaks itself regarding consistently below average performance of the appellant.

17. The submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant that despite possessing much worse record than the appellant, other employees have been retained in service, whereas appellant has been compulsorily retired despite having lesser adverse record, the writ Court has rightly observed that plea of [2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (8 of 13) [SAW-806/2022] discrimination in such matters in not entertainable for the reason that doctrine of equality is a positive concept and no person can be allowed to claim negative equality as a matter of right. In order to support its observation, the writ Court has relied upon the judgment of State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. Vs. Rajit Singh in Civil Appeal Nos.2049-2050/2022 decided on 22.03.2022. We find that such observation made by the writ Court is a correct approach, since mere contention of the appellant that other employees had worse record than the appellant, would not improve his own bad record and would also not confer any right upon the appellant for making a prayer to quash the order of compulsory retirement by citing example of wrong benefit, if any, given to other persons. It is settled proposition of law that one who has come to the Court is required to stand on his own legs. Apparently, the appellant has utterly failed to make out any case of infringement of any of his statutory or fundamental rights.

18. We have also examined the order passed by the Tribunal. It is matter of record that while laying challenge to the order of compulsory retirement, no prayer whatsoever was made by the appellant in his memo of appeal for quashing the penalties imposed/adverse entries recorded in his service record. However, ignoring the absence of any such prayer, the Tribunal in its order dated 31.08.2004 has declared such penalties and adverse entries as ineffective. While doing so the Tribunal has transgressed its jurisdiction and there was no occasion to arrive at such a finding. We are satisfied that the Tribunal has utterly failed to examine the [2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (9 of 13) [SAW-806/2022] record properly and therefore the writ Court has rightly quashed the order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the Tribunal.

19. We would like to refer that in the case of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “28. We now proceed to consider the second order passed by the High Court for recommending the case of the Appellant to the State Government to accept and issue appropriate notification to compulsorily retire the Appellant from Judicial Service. It is now well settled that the object of compulsory retirement from service is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain a high standard of efficiency and honesty and to keep the judicial service unpolluted. Keeping this object in view, the contention of the Appellant has to be appreciated on the basis of the settled law on the subject of Compulsory retirement.

29. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer MANU/SC/0193/1992:(1992) 2 SCC 299, three Judge Bench of this Court has laid down the principles regarding the Order of Compulsory retirement in public interest: “34. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii)The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is arbitrary- in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order. (iv)The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter-of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record [2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (10 of 13) [SAW-806/2022] to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favorable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 30 to 32 above.

30. “28. In... Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0105/1999: (1999) 3 SCC 396, this Court was considering the order of compulsory retirement of the Appellant, who was a Member of the Superior Judicial Service in the State of Bihar. On a writ petition filed by the Appellant in the High Court, challenging his order of compulsory retirement by the Full Court of the High Court, the High Court on the judicial side refused to interfere and dismissed the petition. The Appellant came in appeal before this Court. This Court found that while on various earlier occasions remarks were given by the High Court but there were no entries in the character roll of the Appellant for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. The entries for these years were recorded at one time simultaneously and the Appellant was categorized as 'C' Grade officer. The date on which these entries were made was not indicated either in the original record or in the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent. These were communicated to the Appellant on 29-11- 1996 and were considered by the Full Court on 30-11- 1996. It was clear that these entries were recorded at a stage when the Standing Committee had already made up its mind to compulsorily retire the Appellant from service as it had directed the office on 6-11-1996 to put up a note for compulsory retirement of the Appellant. This Court held that it was a case where there was no material on the basis of which an opinion could have been reasonably formed that it would be in the public interest to retire the Appellant from service prematurely. This Court was of the opinion that the entries recorded "at one go" for three years, namely, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 could hardly have been taken into consideration. The Court then referred to its earlier decision in Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajiah MANU/SC/0411/1988 : (1988) 3 SCC 211, where this Court said that the High Court in its administrative jurisdiction has the power to recommend compulsory [2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (11 of 13) [SAW-806/2022] retirement of the Member of the judicial service in accordance with the rules framed in that regard but it cannot act arbitrarily and there has to be material to come to a decision to compulsorily retire the officer. In that case it was also pointed out that the High Court while exercising its power of control over the subordinate judiciary is under a constitutional obligation to guide and protect judicial officers from being harassed or annoyed by trifling complaints relating to judicial orders so that the officers may discharge their duties honestly and independently; unconcerned by the ill- conceived or motivated complaints made by unscrupulous lawyers and litigants.

31. We are conscious of the fact that there is very limited scope of judicial review of an order of premature retirement from service. As observed by this Court in Rajiah's case (supra) that “21….when the High Court takes the view that an order of compulsory retirement should be made against a member of the Judicial Service, the adequacy or sufficiency of such materials cannot be questioned, unless the materials are absolutely irrelevant to the purpose of compulsory retirement.”

32. We also add that when an order of compulsory retirement is challenged in a court of law, the Court has the right to examine whether some ground or material germane to the issue exists or not. Although, the Court is not interested in the sufficiency of the material upon which the order of compulsory retirement rests.”

20. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel reported in 2001(3) SCC 314, after analyzing several earlier judgments given by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has been observed 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. [2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (12 of 13) [SAW-806/2022] (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.”

21. After analyzing the aforesaid judgments it can be deduced that the key reason for compulsory retirement is to ensure efficient and effective government functioning by weeding out such employees whose services are no longer useful.

22. By now it is also well settled that a decision of compulsory retirement is based on subjective satisfaction of the government, which is derived on the basis of entire service record of concerned employee.

23. In the facts and circumstances of this case, after having a glance over large number of penalties and adverse entries in service record of the appellant, we are satisfied that the State Government has rightly taken a decision in public interest to retire the appellant at a premature stage. [2025:RJ-JP:18740-DB] (13 of 13) [SAW-806/2022]

24. For the reasons mentioned here-in-above, it cannot be said that writ Court has faulted in any manner in quashing order dated

31.08.2004 passed by the Tribunal while allowing the S.B. Civil writ petition No.7858/2004 filed by the State Government.

25. Consequently, being devoid of any merit and substance, D.B. Civil Special (Writ) Appeal No. 806/2022 filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J pcg/196(s)