Compulsory retirement decisions are based on subjective assessments of service records and do not require prior hearings or comparative evaluations of other employees.

ORDER

1. This special appeal is directed against order dated 22.2.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the legality of the order dated 9.5.06 issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Tonk, retiring him from service compulsorily in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 53 (1) of Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996, stands dismissed.

2. The learned Single Judge has found that the order retiring the appellant compulsorily has been passed after scanning the entire service record at two levels by Screening Committee and Review Committee in bona fide manner and looking to the nature of the allegations against the appellant in the disciplinary proceedings wherein the punishment was imposed upon him, the decision taken by the respondents in passing the order of compulsory retirement, in no manner can be termed arbitrary or suffering from any illegality. Regarding the contention of the appellant that while passing the order compulsorily retiring the appellant from service, the respondents have adopted policy of pick and choose inasmuch as, the employees having worst service record were retained in service, the learned Single Judge opined that the plea of discrimination cannot be made applicable in the matter of compulsory retirement and each case is required to be considered by authority in discreet manner by considering the service record of such person. The learned Single Judge observed that the order of compulsory retirement passed is neither punitive nor stigmatic and theory of quantum of punishment cannot apply to the matters of compulsory retirement.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the matter in correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous finding being arrived at. Except three minor incidents in which the appellant was found guilty by the Department and was punished, there was no adverse service record, which could have been made basis for compulsorily retiring the appellant from service. There was no major charge of corruption or embezzlement against the appellant either. The learned Singe Judge has seriously erred in ignoring the fact that some other employees of the Department against whom serious charges were levelled, have been retained in service whereas, the appellant has been picked up for a different treatment being given. The order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondents apparently suffers from non application of mind and thus, was liable to be set aside only on this count. Learned counsel further submitted that after the punishments being inflicted upon the appellant as a result of disciplinary proceedings, the appellant was granted second selection grade vide order dated 22.12.04 and thus, in absence of any adverse remark or penalty subsequent to the grant of selection grade, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Raj Pal Singh & Anr.: (2001) 10 SCC 530, Pawan Kumar Agarwala vs. General Manager-II and appointing authority, State Bank of India & Ors.\ (2015) 15 SCC 184 and the decision of this Court in Devi Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2015 WLC (Raj.) UC, 679. Learned counsel submitted that before passing the order of compulsory retirement, the appellant was not extended an opportunity of hearing and thus, the principle of natural justice stands violated.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterating the stand taken before the learned Single Judge submitted that the orders of punishment passed against the appellant had attained finality and thus, the appellant cannot be permitted to contend that the same were not open to be taken into consideration while examining his case for compulsory retirement. Le