1. - By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 12.6.1998 whereby he has been retired compulsorily under sub-rule 2 of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 from the post of Inspector.

2. The facts, in brief, of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Amin on 8.12.1964 and promoted to the post of Inspector vide order dated 2.9.1993 on recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee under the Rajasthan Sub-ordinate Service (Appointment & other Conditions) Rules, 1960 subject to review and revision, and was confirmed on 14.2.1995. The order of compulsory retirement was passed on 12.6.1998, which is neither in public interest nor the same is based on the relevant record. The irrelevant material and record of which adversities is washed away, has been given much weightage.

3. The Government has filed interim reply and submission of the Government is that there are three punishments, which are as follows :

1. Withholding of one grade increment vide order dated 3.12.1988.

2. Censure order dated 31.10.1991.

3. Again Censure order dated 31.10.1991.

4. Therefore, the order of compulsory retirement has rightly been passed on the basis of relevant material.

4. Law on the issue of compulsory retirement is fairly well settled in case of (1) Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr. AIR 1992 SC 1020 and the principle laid down in the said judgment in para 32 are as follows :

"32. The following principles emerge form the above discussion

(i) An order of the compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior.

(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 is 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 from the requisite opinion on the given material in short; if it is found to be perverse order.

(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 ore 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 un-communicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only on the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This object has been discussed in paras 29 to 31 above."

5. Again the Supreme Court considered the effect of the aforesaid judgment in case of (2) State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel JT 2001 (3) SC 223 wherein the said guidelines have been further crystallized into definite principles. Para 11 of the same is as follows :

"11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus :

(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for sake of public interest.

(ii) Ordinarily,