Ganganagar, Rajasthan vs The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary Department Of

Judgment

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur

3. The Deputy Director General Of Police, Range, Bikaner, Rajasthan

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Ms. Gayatri Rathore, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ran Singh & Shri Mukesh Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order ORDER RESERVED ON : : 07/08/2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : : 11 /08 / 2025 This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 02.06.2015 passed by Rajasthan Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short-`the Tribunal’) whereby, while dismissing the appeal no.261/01 preferred by the petitioner, the order dated 27.11.2000 compulsorily retiring him, was upheld. [2025:RJ-JP:30598] (2 of 5) [CW-11097/2015] The relevant facts in brief are that while the petitioner was posted as Police Sub-Inspector, vide order dated 27.11.2000, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for brevity, ‘Rules of 1996’). The order was assailed before the Tribunal by way of an appeal which came to be dismissed vide order impugned dated 02.06.2015. Assailing the impugned order, the only contention advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that while dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal did not appreciate that after the year 1991, till he was compulsorily retired vide order dated

27.11.2000, he had to his credit only one punishment and in view of his recent past record, he could not have been compulsorily retired considering his remote past record. She, therefore, prays that the order impugned order dated 02.06.2015 be quashed and set aside, the appeal be allowed and the respondents be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits. She, in support her submissions, relies upon a judgement dated

26.10.2015 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baldev Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others: D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.209/2015. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the findings recorded by the Tribunal, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. Vide order dated 27.11.2000, the respondents, exercising the power conferred under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 compulsorily retired the petitioner from service in public interest. The appeal preferred thereagainst by the petitioner came to be [2025:RJ-JP:30598] (3 of 5) [CW-11097/2015] dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 02.06.2015, validity whereof has been assailed only on the count that while his remote past record was considered, the recent past record was ignored which was almost unblemished. A perusal of the order dated

02.06.2015 reveals that the petitioner was punished with following penalties during his career:- (i) order dated 15.03.1983, penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, (ii) order dated 02.09.1983, penalty of Censure, (iii) order dated 28.07.1986, penalty of Censure, (iv) order dated 31.12.1986, penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, (v) order dated 06.09.1989, penalty of Censure, (vi) order dated 31.05.1991, penalty of Censure, (vii) order dated 07.06.1991, penalty of Censure, (viii) order dated 17.01.2000, penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the petitioner was inflicted with as many as 8 punishments. It is trite law that while considering the case of a government servant for compulsory retirement, his entire service record has to be examined. A three- Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.-(2010) 10 SCC 693, held as under: “18. Thus, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and it does not imply stigma unless such order is passed to impose a punishment for a proved misconduct, [2025:RJ-JP:30598] (4 of 5) [CW-11097/2015] as prescribed in the Statutory Rules. (See Surendra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.-(2010) 1 SCC 158). The Authority must consider and examine the over-all effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said Authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee "rendered himself a liability to the institution", there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review.

29. The law requires the Authority to consider the "entire service record" of the employee while assessing whether he can be given compulsory retirement irrespective of the fact that the adverse entries had not been communicated to him and the officer had been promoted earlier in spite of those adverse entries xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” The aforesaid dictum has been followed consistently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.-(2020) 13 SCC

355. As is apparent from the material on record, the petitioner was inflicted with penalties on as many as eight occasions and therefore, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order of compulsory retirement. In view thereof, this Court finds no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Tribunal based on appreciation of material on record. Contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that while remote past record was taken into consideration [2025:RJ-JP:30598] (5 of 5) [CW-11097/2015] ignoring the recent past, the order is bad in law, does not merit acceptance in view of aforesaid precedential law and also for the reason that in recent past also before passing the order impugned, the petitioner was inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 17.01.2000. Reliance placed by the learned senior counsel on the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) is of no assistance to him having been rendered in different facts and circumstances. It was held in that case that the screening committee as well as reviewing committee only considered the negative aspect of the service record of the government servant ignoring the positive aspect which reflected that he was awarded for effective recovery of the State revenue in recent past and the selection grades were extended adopting the criteria applicable for promotion. In that case also also, the legal position was reiterated that entire service record of the government servant is required to be examined. In view of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. RS/65 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J