An order of compulsory retirement can be quashed by the court if it is found to be mala fide, based on incorrect information and non-application of mind, or arbitrary and perverse.

1. - Ravindra Nath Dubey, petitioner herein, filed the present writ petition nine years ago challenging the order dated 18.04.2002 passed by respondents by which he was compulsorily retired from service and the order dated 18.06.2004 by which the appeal filed by him against the said order was dismissed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Service Tribunal').

2. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (for short, 'LDC') by the District Collector, Chittorgarh vide order dated 07.06.1975. He was later on transferred to the Government College, Chittorgarh and appointed there as Laboratory Assistant vide order dated 03.01.1976. He was transferred to the Government College, Nathdwara. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Principal Seat of this court at Jodhpur. This court vide order dated 09.09.1994 stayed operation of the transfer order. The respondents did not comply with the aforesaid stay order passed by this court. The petitioner filed a contempt petition in which notices were issued to the respondents where after he was allowed to join back in the Government College, Chittorgarh. The contempt petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. It was thereafter that a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 05.06.1995. One of the charges against the petitioner was that he by not taking the charge in the chemistry department of the college on the pretext of the pendency of the litigation before this court at Jodhpur, failed to faithfully discharge his duties and thereby caused loss to the State exchequer of the emoluments paid to him for such period. There was another charge about filing of an affidavit by him before the court of Munsiff at Chittorgarh in which according to the respondent the petitioner gave a false affidavit on 14.02.1994 with regard to his appointment. Enquiry officer on 21.08.1995 found seven charges proved against the petitioner including above referred to charges. Disciplinary authority, vide order dated 21.08.1995, awarded penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of pay scale. Petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of penalty. The appellate authority partly allowed his appeal vide order dated 31.03.2000 and substituted the penalty of reduction of his pay to the minimum of the pay scale by that of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect. It was thereafter that case of the petitioner for grant of second selection scale became ripe. Since the next higher post was not available in the department for promotion of the petitioner, he was granted second selection scale on completion of 18 years of satisfactory service by order of the respondent dated 11.04.2001. The respondents then invoking the Rule 53 of the RSR, compulsorily retired the petitioner by order dated 18.04.2002. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Service Tribunal by order dated 18.06.2004. Both these orders are impugned in the present proceedings.

2. 1. When hearing of this writ petition was getting delayed, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the order dated 06.05.2011 passed in the writ petition. The Supreme Court by order dated 19.11.2012 requested this court to deal with the matter expeditiously and may not give any adjournment.

3. We have heard Shri Anupam Agarwal and Shri Neeraj Batra for petitioner as well as Shri Anant Bhandari, Deputy Government Counsel, for respondents State and also perused the material on record.

4. Shri Anupam Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents for the reasons of mala-fide and in colourable exercise of powers. It is not only a mala-fide order but also arbitrary and discriminatory and is revengeful order to teach a lesson to the petitioner for filing a contempt petition against the respondents. It is contended that the selection scale as per the Circu