Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Vijay Kumar Yadav (2026:Rj-Jp:13020) on 27 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:13020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2455/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its I.G Range Jaipur-I,
Banipark, Jaipur.
2. D.G.P. Rajasthan Police, Phq, Jaipur.
3. Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Kumar Yadav, Compulsory Retired Sub-Inspector Police,
Resident Of A-374, Jda Colony, Naradpura, P.o. Amer, Via Natata,
Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Soumitra Chaturvedi, Dy.GC with Mr. Shubham Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Yadav, present in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order REPORTABLE 27/03/2026
1. Instant writ petition is filed by the State of Rajasthan and others, aggrieved from the order dated 15.04.2021 in Appeal No. 1850/2005 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), with the following prayer:
"It is, that therefore, most humbly Your Lordships may be set pleased to call for the entire record of the matter and further quash and aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2021, passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal in appeal no.
1850/2005 titled as Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs State Rajasthan & Ors., exempt the penalty of Rs 2 (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:04 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (2 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] Lacs imposed upon the then Inspector General of Police, Range-I, Jaipur, and allow the writ petition filed by the petitioners."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that after considering the service record of the respondent, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1996"). He further submitted that the record considered by the petitioners clearly indicates that 43 departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent and, in these proceedings, the respondent was awarded different punishments, which include censure to stoppage of increment. He further referred to the government decision and submitted that, to enhance efficiency and competency in the public system, the person with a tainted record has been removed under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996. He further submitted that the respondent has completed the minimum qualifying service as prescribed under the rule to attract the invocation of the rule, and the order was passed in public interest. He also submitted that neither there is any mala fide nor any bias against the respondent and merely on the basis of a drive to clean up the administration, the decision was taken by the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further raised the issue of jurisdiction under Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Service Matters Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1976"), and submitted (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (3 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] that the subject of "compulsory retirement" is not a matter assigned for adjudication by the Tribunal. He further referred to the non-consideration of objections raised by the petitioners, particularly under Section 4A of the Act of 1976, and submitted that the respondent has filed an appeal without submitting representation to the petitioners, and the same is not entertainable by the Tribunal.
4. He further referred to the post facto approval by the High Power Committee and the State Government and submitted that, after taking a decision in accordance with Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996, the DGP, Rajasthan Police, has sent a proposal for post facto approval, and the same was granted on 26.04.2006, but the Tribunal has not considered the post facto approval as the appeal was decided several years after the post facto approval. He placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Chandra Singh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., reported as (2003) 6 SCC 545.
5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the respondent himself, who defended his case in person. He submitted that, without compliance of DOP circular and without prior approval, the IGP has acted in haste and passed an order of compulsory retirement, which is contrary to the procedure as prescribed by the Government of Rajasthan. He also submitted that the disciplinary authority has not taken into account subsequent or latest annual reports before taking action against the respondent.
6. He further referred to the judgment in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr vs Chief Distt. Medical (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (4 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] Officer, Baripada (1992) 2 SCC 299, and submitted that, without considering the latest departmental performance reports, if any decision is taken by the authority, then the same is against the fundamental rule. He also referred some of documents for applicability of the ratio in his case, as considered by the Tribunal.
7. The respondent has further referred the judgments in the cases of M/s Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. vs. Assam Electricity Board and Ors. AIRONLINE 2016 SC 670, Sarvepalli Ramaiah (D) through LRs vs District Collector Chittoor Dist. 2019 (4) SCC 500, State of Rajasthan and others vs. Shripal Jain (AIR 1963 SC 1323), and BSNL vs. M/s Tata Communication Limited Etc. (Civil Appeal No(s). 1699-1723 of 2015, order dated 22.09.2022), and submitted that there has been no adverse entries in the last four years and the petitioners have acted contrary to law and have adopted tactics to pick and choose, which is a discrimination with respondent. He further submitted that this is a case of malice in law and only because of a vindictive approach of the petitioners, the action of the petitioners is illegal and the Tribunal has rightly considered the decision. He also referred to the judgment in the case of S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath 1994 SCC (1) 1 and submitted that the department has not only played a fraud but misrepresented the case of respondent, while passing an order in breach of circular dated 30.04.2002, to compulsorily retire the respondent from service. He also submitted that the IGP is not a (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (5 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] competent authority to take a decision about the service record of the respondent and the decision made by the IGP is per se illegal. He also referred and placed reliance upon the findings recorded by the Tribunal and submitted that, considering the action of the IGP, exemplary cost has been awarded against him. At last, he submitted that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the case of the respondent, as compulsory retirement is not a punishment.
8. Heard respondent, appearing in person, and learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the material placed on record and also considered the judgments as referred by both the parties.
9. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent, Vijay Kumar, was appointed as SI on 31.07.1978 by way of direct recruitment and on 18.07.2005 he was compulsorily retired under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996. The respondent has challenged the impugned order dated 18.07.2005 before the Tribunal and the same was allowed on 15.04.2021. The Tribunal has set aside the order dated 18.07.2005 and observed as under:
"The authorities have acted in a high handed manner and without the authority of law in a overzealous manner. The appellant might have been a public servant deserving Compulsory Retirement but no such order can be passed without following the procedure prescribed under law particularly when the matter pertains to livelihood and right to life which is sacrosanct. If higher authorities (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (6 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] themselves do not follow the rules and provisions of law, what can be expected of subordinates. It sets a bad precedent and may encourage other officials as well to indulge in similar conduct of highhendedness and disrespect towards law. The case pertains to 2005 and now setting aside of unlawful order an unlawful order necessarily needs to be set aside, will have serious financial repercussions for public exchequer and all this due to unauthorized conduct of senior officials. We therefore deem it fit to impose a penalty of 2 lacs on the then errand IG range 1 Jaipur who passed an unlawful order of compulsory retirement in case of the appellant. If the IG has retired, same should be recovered through his pension in suitable installments of not less than 25000 a month.
The appellant will be entitled for pension and other retirement benefits by taking into account his services as restored from the date of retirement order. The Pension given to him so far will suitably be adjusted."
10. The State of Rajasthan through IG Range, DGP Rajasthan and Home Secretary have filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order dated 18.07.2005 issued by IGP, Jaipur Range-I is read as under:
"Whereas Shri Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Sanwal, Sub Inspector (Posted in jaipur City) has (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (7 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] completed 15 years of qualifying service and has attained the age of 50 years.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the right conferred by rule 53(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rule, 1996, the undersigned hereby retires the said Shri Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Sanwal, S.I., from service in public interest with effect from the receipt of this order by him. In lieu of the three months previous notice, a Bank Draft No.- 488700 for an amount of Rs. 40127/- drawn on SBBJ, Banipark, Jaipur representing the amount of pay and allowance for the said notice period is enclosed."
11. The petitioners have raised two objections before the Tribunal. Firstly, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as service matter relating to "compulsory retirement" has not been mentioned in Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976, and secondly, the Tribunal has not considered the provision of Section 4A of the Act of 1976 while entertaining the appeal.
12. The Tribunal has considered both the grounds and held that compulsory retirement is not a punishment; hence, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Similarly, the objection under Section 4A of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Act was overruled, but no reason is assigned to convince this Court as to why the Tribunal has overruled these objections.
13. Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976 defines "Service matter"
means any one or more than one of the following matters relating to a Government servant:
(i) Seniority;
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (8 of 18) [CW-2455/2022]
(ii) Promotion;
(iii) Confirmation;
(iv) Fixation of pay;
(v) An order denying or varying pay, allowances, pension and other service conditions to the disadvantage of a Government servant, otherwise than as a penalty;
(vi) Cases of reversion while officiating in a higher service, grade or post to lower service, grade or post otherwise than as a penalty;
(vii) Withholding the pension or denying the maximum pension otherwise than as the penalty;
(viii) transfer from one place/post to another place;
(ix) Any other matter notified by the Government.
14. Section 4 of the Act of 1976 provides that the Tribunal shall hear an appeal against the order passed by any officer or authority, but only on any service matter or matters affecting a government servant in his personal capacity. Section 4A mandates that the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit any appeal unless it is satisfied that the appellant has availed all remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of his grievances. The service rules mean rules, regulations, orders or other instruments or arrangements as are in force with respect to redressal.
15. Admittedly, the respondent was compulsorily retired by the IGP, Jaipur Range-I. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force vs. HC GD Omprakash, (2022) 5 SCC 100, has considered the judgment in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr. vs Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada (supra), wherein it was held that the order of compulsory retirement is not a (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (9 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] punishment, as it implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior. The order of compulsory retirement is in public interest and is based on the subjective satisfaction of the Government and is not liable to be quashed by the Court merely for the reason that uncommunicated adverse remarks were taken into consideration. While allowing the appeal of CISF, it was held that the entire service record is to be taken into consideration, which would include ACRs of the period prior to promotion. The order of premature retirement is required to be passed on the basis of the entire service record, though the recent reports would carry their own weight.
16. The Tribunal is constituted for adjudication of service matters as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976, but it cannot assume jurisdiction which is not provided under Section 2(f) of the Act. The matters mentioned therein clearly indicate that the subject "compulsory retirement" is not included in service matters to be considered by the Tribunal. When jurisdiction is not assigned to adjudicate the matter, then the Tribunal, being a creation of statute, cannot assume its jurisdiction. None of the subjects as mentioned in Section 2(f) is sufficient to assume that compulsory retirement is incidental to the matters provided therein. The Tribunal has not only committed a serious mistake, but it has assumed jurisdiction without assigning any reason, which is a dangerous trend on the part of the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal was not having any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the appeal preferred by the respondent and any order (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (10 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] passed without jurisdiction is a nullity; therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is null and void in the eye of law.
17. Section 4A of the Act of 1976 provides that the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit any appeal unless it is satisfied that the appellant has availed all remedies available to him under the service rules. Before considering this let us consider the availability of alternative forums to challenge the order.
18. As the order of compulsory retirement is passed under Rule 53 of the Pension Rules, 1996, so Rule 53 of the Rules, 1996 is reproduced as under:
Rule 53(1): At any time, after a Government servant has completed 15 years qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, the appointing authority, upon having been satisfied that the concerned government servant has on account of his indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of official duties, has lost his utility, may require the concerned Government servant to retire in public interest after following the procedure laid down by the Government in Department of Personnel/Administrative Reforms Department. In case of such retirement, the Government servant shall be entitled to retiring pension.
Rule-53(2): In such case the appointing authority shall give a notice in writing to government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire in public interest or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (11 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] Rule-53(3): The appointing authority may publish an order of such retirement in Rajasthan Rajpatra and the government servant shall be deemed to have retired on such publication even if he has not served with the retirement order earlier.
Rule-53(4): In case if such a compulsory retirement the employees may represent against the order of compulsory retirement within a period of 30 days to the concerned authorities. Explanation was that for the purpose of this rule, the expression "Appointing Authority" shall means the authority which is competent to make appointment to service or post them which the government servant is retired."
19. Rule 53(4) provides that, in case of compulsory retirement, the employee may make a representation against the order of compulsory retirement within a period of 30 days to the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an objection that the respondent was required to submit a representation and, without representation, he cannot approach the Tribunal. Rule 53(4) is not an alternative remedy provided against compulsory retirement;
therefore, there was no remedy before the respondent except to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the order of compulsory retirement, passed on basis of service record (after qualifying service) is never treated as a stigmatic and punitive action. Thus, the objection about Section 4A raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable.
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (12 of 18) [CW-2455/2022]
20. The basic ground which was considered by the Tribunal for setting aside the order is that the DOP has issued a circular on 07.03.2001 providing for scrutiny of the entire service record by the highest review committee and approval of higher committees constituted by the State Government (appointing authority). One more circular dated 30.04.2002 issued by the Secretary to the Government is also reproduced by the Tribunal before setting aside the order dated 18.07.2005.
21. The circular dated 30.04.2002 is reproduced as under:
"However, after the State Review Committee decides that some government servants should be given compulsory retirement. the concerned Administrative Department will make a reference to the High Powered Committees which have been constituted vide Order No. F.6(9)AR/Gr.-3/2001 dated 07.03.2001 of the Administrative Reforms Department under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary. Department of Personnel. All the cases which are recommended for compulsory retirement by the State Review Committee will be reviewed by these High Powered Committees if the High Powered Committee agrees with the recommendation of the State Review Committee that any government servants should be given compulsory retirement, the matter will be submitted on file to the Minister of Personnel by the Administrative Department concerned. The orders for compulsory retirement can be issued only after the Minister for Personnel approves the proposal for giving compulsory (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (13 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] retirement.
These clarifications may kindly be brought to the notice of all concerned for ensuring strict compliance thereof.
(Ashok Sampatram) Secretary to Government"
22. The material on record indicates that after the order dated 18.07.2005, whereby the respondent was compulsorily retired after making payment of three months' advance salary in lieu of three months' notice, the petitioners (DGP) realized that the matter was required to be sent for post facto approval by the high-level committee. The letter dated 23.01.2006 sent by the DGP indicates that 5 Police Inspectors, 24 Sub-Inspectors and 47 Assistant Sub- Inspectors of Police were compulsorily retired and, due to inadvertent mistake, the same were sent at prior stage for approval of the State Level Committee. Pursuant to the letter dated 23.01.2006, the State Government has approved the proposals sent by the DGP and post facto approval was granted on 26.04.2006, thus the Government was in complete agreement with the action taken by the petitioners.
23. The Tribunal has referred to a letter dated 23.06.2006 sent by the DGP, though there is no such letter on record. Perhaps the Tribunal has referred to the letter dated 23.01.2006 sent for post facto approval. The Tribunal has not mentioned the fact that the State Government has accorded post facto approval to the order dated 18.07.2005.
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (14 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] The respondent has not challenged any of the orders, including the post facto approval.
24. The Tribunal has held that the order of compulsory retirement is issued without authority of law, hence malicious and arbitrary and suffers from malice in law. However, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the charge of malice against the petitioners.
25. The letter sent to the Government clearly indicates that a total of 76 persons were compulsorily retired, which includes 24 Police Sub-Inspectors. The case of the respondent was not considered in isolation; rather, his overall service record was considered as per the grounds mentioned in the writ petition.
26. The respondent has also pleaded "malice in law", which means a wrongful act done intentionally without legal justification or excuse. Herein, neither before this Court nor before the Tribunal has any material been placed to show that the respondent was intentionally compulsorily retired by invoking Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996, therefore, this is not a case of malice in law. If any approval was not taken at the time of compulsory retirement, then it is a bonafide act and not a malafide act.
27. Rule 53(1), as referred hereinabove, reflects that on account of indolence, doubtful integrity, incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in performance of official duties, an individual loses his utility, he may be retired in public interest.
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (15 of 18) [CW-2455/2022]
28. It is a settled proposition of law that the source of compulsory retirement of an employee of the Government is basically derived from the doctrine of pleasure, which emanates from Article 310 of the Constitution of India. The principle, as laid down in the case of T.G. Shivacharana Singh vs. State of Mysore (AIR 1965 SC 280) can be referred to understand principles behind invocation of rules relating to compulsory retirement.
29. While considering a case of compulsory retirement, the disciplinary authority is required to take into consideration the entire service record before recording its subjective satisfaction. In the case of Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr vs Chief Distt. Medical Officer (supra), it was held that compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences, as it is not a punitive action.
30. In case of Union of India vs. Col. J.N. Sinha and Ors.
reported as (1970) 2 SCC 458, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the doctrine of pleasure is subject to the rules or law made under Article 309 as well as the conditions prescribed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India but the principles of natural justice are not embodied rules, nor can they be elevated to the position of fundamental rights in such cases.
31. In case of Arun Kumar Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand and Another [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1015 [W.P. (C) No. 190/2018, decided on 27.02.2020], Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the principles governing compulsory retirement and, while referring the judgment in Chandra (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (16 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] Singh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra), referred a conclusion even if an order of compulsory retirement awarded to the applicant was not in consonance with law and no relief was granted to the petitioner on the ground that, even under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can assess the performance of any judicial officer at any time with a view to discipline the cadre or weed out the deadwood.
32. While referring to the judgment in Syed T.A. Naqshbandi vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported as (2003) 9 SCC 592, it was observed in case of Arun Kumar Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand and Another (supra) that, while exercising the power of judicial review, the Court should not substitute itself for the Committee/Full Court of the High Court.
33. Again, referring to the judgment in Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand reported as (2010) 10 SCC 693, observed that the authority must consider and examine the overall 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 removal of a Government servant on the basis of service record is considered an action to improve the functioning of the Government by removing the deadwood.
34. After following the procedure as laid down by the Government, the order dated 18.07.2005 clearly indicates that the respondent was compulsorily retired in public (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (17 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] interest. Thus, non-observance of certain non-binding guidelines is not sufficient to draw a conclusion against the intentions of the petitioners.
35. The respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case M/s Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. vs. Assam Electricity Board and Ors. (supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered a review petition on various grounds, including legal grounds, and dismissed the same.
36. In the case of Sarvepalli Ramaiah (D) through LRs vs District Collector Chittoor Dist. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that administrative decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only on the grounds of perversity, illegality, irrationality, want of power to take decision, and judicial review is directed against the decision-making process.
37. In the case of State of Rajasthan and others vs. Shripal Jain (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the power of the Inspector General of Police in relation to the order of compulsory retirement of a police inspector and, while allowing the appeal of the State Government, has held that compulsory retirement is provided under two categories, one as a penalty and another not as a punishment.
38. In the case of BSNL vs. M/s Tata Communication Limited Etc. (supra), it was held that the circular issued are prospectively applicable and not retrospectively, meaning (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:13020] (18 of 18) [CW-2455/2022] thereby the respondent want to impress that subsequent approval has no place in his case.
39. We have considered the judgments as referred by the respondent in person, but, considering the discussion made hereinabove, none of them is applicable to the facts of the present case so as to help the respondent, thus, the respondent is not entitled to any benefit.
40. The discussion made hereinabove clearly indicates that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred by the respondent, and even on merits, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable for the reasons as mentioned hereinabove. The Tribunal has not considered the overall service record of the respondent and the same is also not the subject matter before us. The order of the Tribunal is without any authority or jurisdiction, thus, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
41. Accordingly, the writ petition preferred by petitioners State of Rajasthan and Others is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 15.04.2021 in appeal No.1850/2005 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal preferred by respondent Vijay Kumar Yadav before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur is hereby dismissed.
42. No order as to cost.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /96 (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)