The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of compulsory retirement is based on the subjective satisfaction of the government, and the court will not interfere with such orders if arrived at bonafidely and on the basis of material available on record.

JUDGMENT

1. 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.

2. 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 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).'

3. 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.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the conduct of the respondent No.2 as well as his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) 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.

5. 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 const