Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Raj vs Rajasthan Civil Services Appel on 8 April, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7858/2004
State of Rajasthan through Collector (Land Records), Ajmer,
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.
2. Mool Chand Jadam S/o Shri Tej Mal Jadam, Resident of 133/I,
Dayanand Colony, Ramnagar, Ajmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria
Mr. Ramesh Chand Bairwa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
Date of Reserve :: 23.03.2022
Date of Pronouncement :: April 8, 2022
Reportable
Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the
impugned order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the Rajasthan Civil
Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') by
which the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent No.2
dated 21.09.2000 has been quashed and set aside.
Facts, in brief, of the case are that the respondent No.2 was
appointed on the post of Patwari on 01.05.1974. After completion
of 26 years of service, he was given compulsory retirement by the
District Collector (Land Records) District Ajmer, vide order dated
21.09.2000 by exercising the powers conferred under Rule 53(i) of
the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM)
(2 of 19) [CW-7858/2004]
Rules of 1996'). The order dated 21.9.2000 is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"Whereas Shri Mool Chand Jadam son of Shri Tej
Mal Jadam designation Inspector Land Record, Tehsil
Masuda has completed 15 years of qualifying service.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the right conferred
by rule 53(i) of Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules
1996, the Governor is hereby pleased to retire the said
Shri Mool Chand Jadam I.L.R. Tehsil Masuda.
The undersigned hereby retire the said Shri Mool
Chand Jadam, I.L.R. Tehsil Masuda from service in
public interest, with effect from the date of receipt of
this Order by him (in lieu of the three months previous
notice, a Band Draft for an amount of Rs. 26910/-
representing the amount of pay and allowances for the
said notice period is enclosed)."
Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2000, the
respondent No.2 submitted an appeal before the Tribunal which
was allowed vide order dated 31.08.2004 and the order of
compulsory retirement of respondent No.2 was quashed and set
aside and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent
No.2 on the post of Inspector (Land Records) by treating him as
continuous on the duty with all consequential benefits. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that during the service tenure of
the respondent No.2, his services were not found to be
satisfactory as nineteen punishment orders were passed against
him. So, the Screening Committee took a decision and
recommended the case of the respondent No.2 for compulsory
retirement as he was not entitled to be retained in service.
Learned counsel further submits that the conduct of the
respondent No.2 as well as his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM)
(3 of 19) [CW-7858/2004]
and Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs), service file
and service book etc. were considered by the Screening
Committee with all objective consideration and with subjective
satisfaction and thereafter it came to the conclusion that the
retention of the respondent No.2 in service was not in public
interest. Hence, the Screening Committee as well as the
Reviewing Committee rightly passed the recommendations for
giving compulsory retirement to the respondent No.2.
Counsel further submits that the law with regard to the
compulsory retirement is well settled but the Tribunal has wrongly
applied the principles of law and quashed the compulsory
retirement of the respondent No.2. Counsel further submits that
the Tribunal has committed mistake in not considering the
provisions of Rule 53 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996') and has also not
considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with
regard to compulsory retirement. Counsel further submits that the
Tribunal has misread and misconcluded the material so placed
before it and further committed an illegality in examining the
punishment orders passed against the respondent No.2 which had
already attained finality and which were not under challenge
before it. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from an
illegality. Counsel further submits that in order to take action with
regard to compulsory retirement, an internal Screening Committee
was constituted as per the circulars issued by the Government of
Rajasthan. The said Committee was constituted with the strength
of the Additional Collector-City, Sub-Divisional Officer, Ajmer and
after screening the entire service record of various Inspectors
(Land Records), the Committee recommended the case of three
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM)
(4 of 19) [CW-7858/2004]
Inspectors (Land Records) including the respondent No.2. The
Review Committee again examined the entire record of these
three Inspectors (Land Records) and after examining the service
record of all these persons, the Review Committee recommended
for compulsory retirement of two Inspectors (Land Records)
including the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the Competent
Authority after examining the record and the recommendations of
the Screening Committee and the Review Committee, took a
decision in public interest to compulsory retire the respondent
No.2 from the service and accordingly an order of compulsory
retirement was passed on 21.09.2000. Counsel further submits
that the Tribunal was not having any jurisdiction to hear the
appeal against the order of compulsory retirement. The Rajasthan
Civil Services Appellate Tribunal has been constituted under the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act,
1976 (for short 'the Act of 1976') and as per Section 2(f) and
Section 4 of the Act of 1976, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear
the appeals against the orders passed with regard to service
matters as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976. Section
2(f) nowhere includes the matters with regard to compulsory
retirement. Therefore, the Tribunal was not having any jurisdiction
to entertain the appeal arising out of the order of compulsory
retirement dated 21.9.2000. Thus, the order was passed without
jurisdiction. Counsel further submits that the punishment orders
dated 26.09.1994 and 20.07.1999 were not under challenge
before the Tribunal but even then the Tribunal has exceeded its
jurisdiction by quashing and setting aside the same.
In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon following judgments:-
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM)
(5 of 19) [CW-7858/2004]
1. Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr. Vs. Chief District Medical Officer
and Anr., reported in 1992(2) SCC 299;
2. Union of India & Ors. v. Dulal Dutt, reported in 1993(2) SCC
179;
3. Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported
in 2020 (1) SCC 801;
4. Pyare Mohan Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in
2010 (10) SCC 693; and
5. Central Industrial Security Force v. HC (GD) Om Prakash, Civil
Appeal No.5428 of 2012, decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on
4.2.2022.
Lastly, counsel has argued that the order dated 31.08.2004
passed by the Tribunal is bad in the eye of law and the same is
liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court and the order
dated 21.09.2000 passed against the respondent No.2 for his
compulsory retirement be maintained to meet the interest of
justice.
Per contra counsel appearing for the respondent No.2
submits that the respondent No.2 was appointed on the post of
Patwari in the year 1974 and thereafter benefit of selection scale
was granted to him on 5.6.1992. Counsel further submits that till
1992, 14 punishment orders were passed w.e.f. 1974 to 1986 and
these 14 punishment orders were very well available with the
respondent No.2, even then the benefit of grant of selection scale
was granted to him on 5.6.1992. So, the penalties imposed upon
the respondent No.2 cannot be considered for his compulsory
retirement. Counsel further submits that the Department
recommended names of three Land Record Inspectors namely;
Rameshwar Prasad, Bhanwar Lal Joshi and the present respondent
No.2 for their compulsory retirement on the basis of several
punishment orders and adverse entries in the ACRs but the
Reviewing Committee took the decision of compulsory retirement
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM)
(6 of 19) [CW-7858/2004]
of the petitioner and one Bhanwar Lal Joshi and the name of the
similarly situated person namely; Rameshwar Prasad was left out.
He further submits that cases of Beeram Ram Bhatt, Kayam Ali
and Madan Lal Ajmera were also recommended for compulsory
retirement, as several punishment orders were there against them
and entries in their ACRs, APARs were also adverse against them,
but even then compulsory retirement was not given to them. Such
action of the Department amounts to violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and it also amounts to malafides on the part
of the Department. Counsel submits that under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, the respondent No.2 is entitled to claim
equality and equal treatment of law. When the same decision has
been taken by the Screening Committee for recommendation of
Rameshwar Prasad, Beeram Ram Bhatt, Kayam Ali and Madan Lal
Ajmera, for compulsory retirement along-with the petitioner and
one Bhanwar Lal Joshi then the Reviewing Committee should have
given the equal treatment to each one of them instead of picking
and choosing the names of respondent No.2 and one Bhanwar Lal
Joshi for their compulsory retirement and dropped the names of
the above similarly situated persons. Counsel further submits that
the tribunal has taken into consideration all these facts and rightly
passed the order of quashing and setting aside the compulsory
retirement order of respondent No.2. Counsel for the respondent
No.2 has fairly conceded that the order of punishment and the adverse entries in the ACRs of the respondent No.2 were not under challenge before the tribunal but the tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the same. Counsel further fairly conceded that the tribunal was not having such jurisdiction to quash such order.
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM)
(7 of 19) [CW-7858/2004] Counsel further submitted that the tribunal was having jurisdiction under section 2(f) of the Act of 1976 to hear and decide the matters related to compulsory retirement. In support of his submissions, counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has placed reliance on an order dated 26.04.2001 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devi Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2515/2000), wherein the similar controversy came before this Court that 'Whether the writ petition would lie before this Court straightway against the order of compulsory retirement or the Tribunal would hear and decide such matters?' The said petition was decided granting liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal questioning the correctness of the order of compulsory retirement.
Counsel for the respondent No.2 has further placed reliance on the Judgment of Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.34 has observed as under:-
"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 passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it 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 perverse order.
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM)
(8 of 19) [CW-7858/2004]
(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 to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable 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 interfere. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This aspect has been discussed in paras 29 to 31 above."
Counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that there was no subjective decision of the Department and the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent No.2 was malafide for the reason that the discrimination was caused with the respondent No.2 as the Screening Committee recommended the names of three persons namely; Rameshwar Prasad, Bhanwar Lal Joshi and the present respondent No.2 for their compulsory retirement but the Reviewing Committee has dropped the name of Rameshwar Prasad. As such the action on the part of the Department is arbitrary and the tribunal has rightly considered these facts and rightly quashed the order of compulsory retirement of respondent No.2. Lastly, counsel prayed for rejection of the writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides and also gone through the entire material made available to me including the judgments cited above.
It may be mentioned that the issue of compulsory retirement has been considered in a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly in Baikunthnath Das & anr. (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM)
(9 of 19) [CW-7858/2004] (supra) wherein it has been held that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment but it implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. The order of compulsory retirement is in public interest and is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government and the same is not liable to be quashed by this Court merely for the reason that once promotion was granted to an employee in-spite of several punishment orders passed against him.
In the State of Punjab Vs. Gurdas Singh reported in 1998 (4) SCC 92, the Supreme Court observed as under :-
"Before the decision to retire a government servant prematurely is taken, the Authorities are required to consider the whole record of service. Any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion or putting of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the over- all performance of the employee during the whole of his tenure of service whether it is in public interest to retain him in service. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well."
In State of U.P. and Anr. v. Bihari Lal, reported in 1994 (Supp.) 3 SCC 593, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :-
"It is overall assessment of the record, the authority would reach a decision whether the government servant should be compulsorily retired in public interest. In an appropriate case, there may not be tangible material but the reputation of officer built around him could be such that his further continuance would imperil the efficiency of the public service and would breed indiscipline among other public servants.(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM)
(10 of 19) [CW-7858/2004] Therefore, the Government could legitimately exercise their power to compulsorily retire a government servant. The Court has to see whether before the exercise of the power, the authority has taken into consideration the overall record even including some of the adverse remarks, though for technical reasons might be expunged on appeal or revision. What is needed to be looked into is the bona fide decision taken in the public interest to augment efficiency in the public service. In the absence of any malafide exercise of power or arbitrary exercise of power, a possible different conclusion would not be a ground for interference by a Court."
In State of Gujarat and Ors. Vs. Suryakant Chunnilal Shah, reported in 1998 (8) JT 326, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when an appropriate authority forms bonafide opinion that compulsory retirement of the Government employee is in the public interest, then the Court would not interfere with such order.
In Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar reported in 1999 (1) JT 459, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a larger number of its earlier judgments and held that adverse entires recorded in normal course at any point of time, i.e., at any remote stage, can be taken into consideration, as examining the entire record of the case would include any past entry at whatsoever distance of time it had been recorded. The only requirement is that the entry should be recorded in the normal course.
In Rajat Baran Roy & State of West Bengal & Others, Writ Petiton No.578/1998 (Diary No.16843/1998) (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM) (11 of 19) [CW-7858/2004] decided on 13.04.1999, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of compulsory retirement should be exercised in public interest and for that, the Authority must be satisfied that there was sufficient material particulars to pass such an order.
In Baikuntha Nath Das (supra), the appellant was appointed as a Pharmacist by the Civil Surgeon and was serving as such under the State Government. During the course of his service, the successive Civil Surgeons had entered several adverse entires in his CR which had not been communicated to him. After he had put in the requisite period of service, a Review Committee, having regard to the uncommunicated adverse entries and other material, took a decision that he be compulsorily retired from the service. Accordingly, the State Government passed an order of his compulsory retirement. The appellant challenged the order in the High Court. The High Court looked into the proceedings of the Review Committee and confidential character rolls of the appellant and opined that the order of compulsory retirement was passed not merely upon the uncommunicated adverse remarks, but also on other material and that material did not justify the conclusion that the said remarks were not recorded duly or properly. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Against which, he preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that in the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement suffers from mala fides or that it is based on no evidence or that it is arbitrary. An order of compulsory retirement is passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a Government (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM) (12 of 19) [CW-7858/2004] servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. The Government has to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision to give compulsory retirement in public interest to the Government servant. The Supreme Court also held that the 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.
In Central Industrial Security Force v. HC (GD) Om Prakash (supra), it has been held as under:-
"6. After the judgment in Baikuntha Nath Das, a three Judge Bench in a judgment reported as Posts and Telegraphs Board v. C.S.N. Murthy held that the courts would not interfere with the exercise of the power of compulsory retirement if arrived at bonafidely and on the basis of material available on record. The Court held as under:
"5. .... Whether the conduct of the employee is such as to justify such a conclusion is primarily for the departmental authorities to decide. The nature of the delinquency and whether it is of such a degree as to require the compulsory retirement of the employee are primarily for the Government to decide upon. The courts will not interfere with the exercise of this power, if arrived at bona fide and on the basis of material available on the record. No mala fides have been urged in the present case. The only suggestion of the High Court is that the record discloses no material which would justify the action taken against the respondent. We are unable to agree. In our opinion, there was material which showed that the efficiency of the petitioner was slackening in the last two years of the period under review and it is, therefore, not possible (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM) (13 of 19) [CW-7858/2004] for us to fault the conclusion of the department as being mala fide, perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable."
7. A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Union of India v. Dulal Dutt (supra), examined the order of compulsory retirement of a Controller of Stores in Indian Railway. It was held that an order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. It is a prerogative of the Government but it should be based on material and has to be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government and that it is not required to be a speaking order. This Court held as under:
"18. It will be noticed that the Tribunal completely erred in assuming, in the circumstances of the case, that there ought to have been a speaking order for compulsory retirement. This Court, has been repeatedly emphasising right from the case of R.L. Butail v. Union of India [(1970) 2 SCC 876] and Union of India v. J.N. Sinha [(1970) 2 SCC 458] that an order of a compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. It is actually a prerogative of the Government but it should be based on material and has to be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. Very often, on enquiry by the Court the Government may disclose the material but it is very much different from the saying that the order should be a speaking order. No order of compulsory retirement is required to be a speaking order. From the very order of the Tribunal it is clear that the Government had, before it, the report of the Review Committee yet it thought it fit of compulsorily retiring the respondent. The order cannot be called either mala fide or arbitrary in law."
9. In Union of India v. V.P. Seth, reported in 1994 SCC (L&S) 1052 relying upon Baikuntha Nath Das and other judgments, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under: (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM)
(14 of 19) [CW-7858/2004] "3. These principles were reiterated with approval in the subsequent decision. It would, therefore, seem that an order of compulsory retirement can be made subject to judicial review only on grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness or perversity and that the rule of audi alteram partem has no application since the order of compulsory retirement in such a situation is not penal in nature. The position of law having thus been settled by two decisions of this Court, we are afraid that the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained as the same runs counter to the principles laid down in the said two decisions."
In the instant matter, the case of the respondent No.2 has been examined in view of the aforesaid legal position. The power to prematurely retire a Government servant conferred by Rule 53 (1) of the Rules of 1996 postulates three pre-requisities, viz. (i) in public interest to retire the Government Servant (ii) that he has completed 15 years of service and (iii) he has attained the age of 50 years. 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. The respondent No.2 has been awarded following punishments:-
Sr. Date Punishment under Provision Punishment No.
1. 10.12.1976 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Censure
2. 31.12.1977 Rule 15 (2) of LR Rules Warning 3 15.03.1978 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Censure
4. 13.04.1978 Rule 15 (2) of LR Rules Warning
5. 28.01.1981 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Writt. Warning
6. 05.11.1982 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Censure (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM) (15 of 19) [CW-7858/2004]
7. 10.11.1982 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect
8. 22.07.1982 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect
9. 22.07.1982 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect
10. 03.05.1983 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Censure
11. 01.04.1983 Rule 15(2) of LR Rules Censure
12. 05.02.1982 Rule 15(2) of LR Rules Recd. Warning
13. 30.11.1985 Rule 15(2) of LR Rules Recd. Warning
14. 20.03.1986 Rule 15(2) of LR Rules Recd. Warning
15. 26.09.1994 Rule 16 of CCA Rules Stoppage of two grade increment without cumulative effect
16. 11.02.1997 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Recorded Warn.
17. 13.08.1991 Rule 16 of CCA Rules Censure
18. 20.07.1999 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Stoppage of two grade increment without cumulative effect
19. 27.03.1996 Rule 17 of CCA Rules Stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect The respondent No.2 has not assailed any of these punishments before the appellate forum or before any competent (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM) (16 of 19) [CW-7858/2004] Court of law. Hence, those punishment orders have attained finality against the respondent No.2.
Apart from the above punishment orders, there are adverse entries recorded in the APARs of the respondent No.2 in the year 1998-99. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no material before the authority to form an opinion for giving compulsory retirement to the respondent No.2 under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996. In fact as per the law laid down in the case of Union of India Vs. Col. J. N. Sinha, reported in AIR 1971 SC 40, the purpose of Rule 53 (1) of the Rules of 1996, conferring power on the Government to give compulsory retirement to the Government Servant prematurely is to energise its machinery by 'chopping off the deadwood'. Apart from that, it can also not be said that the entire past service record, as well as ACRs and APARs cannot be taken into consideration by the authority concerned while passing the order of compulsory retirement in public interest.
It may be mentioned here that the minutes of the Screening Committee held on 11.07.2000, were produced before the Reviewing Committee on 12.09.2000, in which the decision to recommend compulsory retirement of the respondent No.2 was taken. The Screening Committee was composed of high and responsible officers, the power is vested in the Government alone and not in the minor officials. Therefore, the Government after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly passed the order of premature retirement of the respondent No.2 under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 in exercise of the rights conferred on the Government to retire a Government (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM) (17 of 19) [CW-7858/2004] Servant after he has served for a certain period to the Government. No exception can be taken in giving compulsory retirement to the respondent No.2 on the basis of the recommendations of the Screening Committee as it has clearly indicated that the retention of the respondent No.2 in service was not in the public interest.
There is no force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the respondent No.2 that in the cases of Beeram Ram Bhatt, Kayam Ali and Madan Lal Ajmera, several punishment orders were there and several adverse entries were there in their APARs and still they were not given compulsory retirement. The respondent No.2 cannot claim any negative parity by applying the doctrine of equality merely because the punishment orders were passed against the aforesaid persons and adverse entries were recorded in their service records. It is really shocking, surprising and sorry state of affairs on the part of the Government that in- spite of so much material available against the above persons, no adverse action was taken against them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Rajit Singh in Civil Appeal Nos. 2049-2050 of 2022 decided on 22nd March, 2022 has held that there cannot be any claim of any negative equality in such cases by applying the doctrine of equality. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent No.2 by applying the doctrine of equality. Thus, the findings of the Tribunal are not based on sound reasoning. The Tribunal has exceeded in its jurisdiction while quashing and setting aside the punishment orders dated 26.09.1994 and 20.07.1999 (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM) (18 of 19) [CW-7858/2004] passed against the respondent No.2. The Tribunal has further exceeded in its jurisdiction while setting aside the entries made in the service record of the respondent No.2 in his APARs of 1998-99 without there being any challenge made by the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has further seriously erred in holding that the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent No.2 passed by the District Collector was suffering from prejudices. There was no such evidence available on the record before the Tribunal to come to such a conclusion that the District Collector was suffering from any prejudices against the respondent No.2. If at all, the respondent No.2 was of the view that there was any malice or mala fides on the part of the Reviewing Committee or the District Collector for giving compulsory retirement to the respondent No.2, then under those circumstance, the respondent No.2 was supposed to implead all of them as a party before the appellate Tribunal, and further he had to establish the malice/prejudices by leading cogent evidence but here in the instant case, without adducing such evidence on the record, oral submissions were made which were accepted by the Tribunal without any basis.
Thus, in this view of the matter, the respondent No.2 was given compulsory retirement by the authorities, after due application of mind, in public interest under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996, after the Screening Committee examined the entire record, with all objective considerations as well as with subjective satisfaction. It is also evident from the record that the conduct of the respondent No.2 was not good and his work performance was found unsatisfactory throughout his service tenure. The frequent (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM) (19 of 19) [CW-7858/2004] punishments are quite sufficient to warrant his compulsory retirement under the provisions of Rule 53(1) of Rules of 1996 and it cannot said that the order of compulsory retirement was passed without application of mind or insufficient material on record or not in public interest.
Thus, in view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 31.08.2004 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and compulsory retirement order of respondent No.2 dated 21.09.2000 is revoked and upheld.
Stay application and all pending applications, if any stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Sharma NK/1 (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:05:19 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)