Rajasthan HC Quashes Compulsory Retirement of Police Inspector, Says Power Under Service Rules Must Be Used Sparingly
Court finds non-application of mind in review under Rule 53 of Pension Rules; entire service record, not stray adverse material
Justice Farjand Ali, Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the compulsory retirement of a Police Inspector, holding that the State’s power to retire an employee in “public interest” under service rules cannot be exercised mechanically or as a substitute for disciplinary action
The bench further observed that compulsory retirement, though not strictly a punishment, is a drastic power that must be used sparingly and objectively under the Rajasthan rules.
The authority must form a bona fide opinion based on the entire service record, giving weight to recent performance. Ignoring good service and relying only on adverse material shows arbitrariness and non-application of mind, it also noted.
Accordingly, while quashing the impugned order, a bench of Justice Farjand Ali directed reinstatement of the petitioner with all notional benefits. The bench observed, “…this Court finds that the respondent authorities have failed to adhere to the binding guidelines contained in Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1966 and circular dated 21.04.2000. They have neither evaluated the petitioner’s performance in the preceding five years nor recorded any cogent reason demonstrating loss of utility or inefficiency. The impugned order appears to be founded solely on past minor penalties, which had already worked themselves out, thereby rendering the action manifestly unjust and legally unsustainable. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 09.07.2020 suffers from arbitrariness, non-compliance of mandatory guidelines and lack of proper application of mind, and therefore cannot be sustained in the eyes of law”.
Advocate Mrigraj Singh Rathore appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Raj Singh Bhati appeared for the respondents.
In the present matter, the officer was retired following a service review conducted under Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, read with Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (RSR). The provisions empower the government to compulsorily retire a government servant after completion of the prescribed length of service or upon attaining the specified age, if their continuation is not considered in public interest.
Now the authorities contended that the petitioner’s case was placed before a Screening Committee constituted for periodic service review. Based on certain adverse entries and overall assessment, he was considered “dead wood” and unfit for further retention. It was further argued that the retirement was administrative in nature, not punitive, and therefore did not require departmental inquiry.
However, rejecting the arguments, the Court reiterated settled law on compulsory retirement, observing, it is not a punishment, but an administrative measure to weed out inefficient or doubtful employees. However, the power under Rule 53 Pension Rules / Rule 244 RSR must be exercised on the basis of the entire service record.
The bench further noted that greater importance must be given to recent performance, promotions, and overall career profile and that the decision must show objective satisfaction that continuation of the employee is against public interest.
On examining the record, the Bench held that such an approach amounts to non-application of mind, making the order vulnerable to judicial review despite the limited scope of interference in compulsory retirement matters.
Cause Title: Arvind Charan v. The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:55263]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mrigraj Singh Rathore, DD Charan, Twinkle Purohit, Advocates.
Respondents: Raj Singh Bhati, Rituraj Singh Bhati, Paramveer Singh, Advocates.