JUDGMENT

anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - By filing instant petition the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 07.8.2020 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'), to struck down the order dated 29.3.2018 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home affairs (Police-I Division), New Delhi and also prayed to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to reinstate him in service w.e.f. 06.04.2018 with all consequential benfits.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner joined Indian Police Service (for short 'the IPS') on 21.8.1989. after completing the institutional and practical training, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of assistant Superintendent of Police (for short 'aSP') on 18.11.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Police (Senior Scale) on 27.7.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Superintendent of Police (Junior administrative Grade) on 18.3.1998. Thereafter, he was promoted to the rank of Superintendent of Police (Selection Scale) on 28.3.2005. Then he was promoted from the post of Superintendent of Police (Selection Scale) to the post of Dy. Inspector General of Police on 5.4.2007 and on 5.7.2008 he was promoted to the rank of Inspector General of Police and on 31.12.2013 he was promoted to the rank of addl. Director General of Police.

3. The petitioner was given compulsory retirement on 29.3.2018 under Rule 16(3) of the all India Services (Death-cumRetirement Benefit) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958').

4. aggrieved by the order of his compulsory retirement dated 29.3.2018, the petitioner approached the tribunal by filing Original application No.552/2018 which was dismissed vide order dated 07.8.2020 by upholding his order of compulsory retirement dated 29.3.2018.

5. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the tribunal and as also the order dated 29.3.2018 passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home affairs (Police-I Division), New Delhi, the petitioner has preferred instant petition.

6. The petitioner has challenged these orders by saying that the order dated 29.3.2018 has been issued without following the guidelines prescribed by the DoPT dated 28.6.2012. The petitioner submitted that under these guidelines, only persons of doubtful integrity or those who have outlived their utility, can be given compulsory retirement. The guidelines also provide that noone who is to retire within one year should be given compulsory retirement under these rules. The petitioner also submitted that a list of persons was considered by the Review Committee including some persons who were going to retire within one year, which shows total non-application of mind of the respondents. The Review Committee has ignored the guidelines i.e. the conduct should be unsatisfactory for immediate 5-6 years but the Committee considered the 'good' and 'very good' aCRs of the petitioner as 'average' and 'weak'. aCRs of others were compared and even then the impugned order was passed against the petitioner alone. The petitioner further submitted that the Competent authority has followed the advice of the Review Committee without any independent application of mind which amounts to delegating the satisfaction of the Competent authority to the Reviewing Committee, which is not correct. The petitioner further submitted that the Review Committee was pr