The central legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to compulsorily retire a government servant must be based on public interest and supported by the entire service record, giving weightage to the performance during the later years. Adverse entries in the confidential record should be considered and given due weightage, and the decision should not be arbitrary or in violation of constitutional rights.

Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant petition has been filed against order dated 30.12.1992 (Annexure 1) whereby petitioner was compulsorily retired from service in exercise of power under Rule 244 (2) of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 (“R.S.R”).

2. Facts, in brief , are that petitioner initially joined service as L.D.C., in the Department of Agriculture on 13.01.1956 and promoted as UDC on 03.03.1960 and so also as Stenographer Gr. II vide order dated 30.11.1963. His services were transferred to Rajastahn Sate Agriculture Marketing Board (“Board”) where he was promoted as Office Superintendent on adhoc basis vide order dated 312.1977 and upon recommendation of DPC, was made substantive on promotional post of Office Superintendent w.e.f. 01.04.1978 vide order dated 20.05.1992 (Annexure 4) and was further promoted as Administrative Officer vide order dated 20.08.1990 (Ann.2) initially for one years probation and on completion of period of probation, was confirmed as Administrative Officer vide order dated 24.09.1991 (Annexure 3).

3. Respondent Board framed its service bye-laws 1977 and wherever Bye-laws are silent, as per resolution of the Board, provisions of RSR were made applicable. Petitioner came with specific case, in the writ petition that his service record is clean and neither adverse entries in his APARs nor disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against him in his total service career of 35 years and he was lastly promoted as Administrative Officer vide order dated 20.08.1990 (Annexure 2), and confirmed vide order dated 24.09.1991 (Annexure 3). Yet respondents in an arbitrary manner passed an order of his compulsory retirement in exercise of powers under Rule 244(2) of RSR vide order dated 30.12.1992 (Annexure 1). Hence this petition.

4. Shri Chain Singh, Counsel for petitioner contends that no material was available with respondents to form an opinion that the petitioner has outlived his utility or that he is not a fit person to be retained in service; as such very action of respondents is arbitrary, and is in violation of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution. According to Counsel, he was due to retire in May, 1995 and interest method has been adopted to oust him from service by invoking Rule 244(2) of RSR which no reasonable man on the basis of his service record can form requisite opinion on given material in holding him to be deadwood; as such impugned decision of respondents is totally perverse and deserves to be set aside.

5. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition and this has not been disputed as referred to in Para 10(B) of the reply that of course, no adverse remarks in ACR was ever recorded or communicated and disciplinary proceedings were also never initiated against him throughout his service career. But it has been averred inter alia that initially preliminary Committee was constituted which examined case of petitioner alongwith such other employees who have attained age of 50 years or rendered 25 years’ services and after examining his service record, found his integrity to be doubtful and such proposal was endorsed by final Committee and accordingly he was compulsorily retired from service in public interest.

6. Cousnel for respondents vehemently urged that preliminary committee constituted by the Board examined total record of service and found integrity of petitioner doubtful and even if his service record was throughout unblemished, that could not be of any significance when the Committee constituted recorded finding of his doubtful integrity; and that apart, one solitary incident, ibid, was sufficient in forming opinion and particularly when no malice has been imputed by petitioner against any member of the Committee or the Board; as such this Court should refrain from interfering with decision of the Committee forming opinion that petitioner has outlived his utility and is not fit to be retained in service and in such circumstances, very decision of respondents impugned is in conson