Compulsory retirement must be based on a holistic assessment of the employee's service record and not merely on isolated past penalties; it should not serve as a punitive measure.

JUDGMENT :

Farjand Ali, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the petitioner assailing the order dated 09.07.2020 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been directed to be compulsorily retired from service.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner entered service as Sub-Inspector in the respondent department on 19.08.1996 and, after successfully undergoing the selection and promotional process, was promoted as Inspector of Police on 20.02.2009. Throughout his career, his service record remained consistently meritorious, reflected by ‘very good’ and ‘excellent’ Annual Appraisal Reports, awards and commendations, and efficient discharge of duties in sensitive assignments including Parliamentary and Assembly Elections, though he was visited only with minor penalties of censure on certain occasions. While he was still left with about thirteen years of service and was discharging duties as Inspector of Police, District Jaisalmer, the respondents, without recording any reasons and without adhering to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as “The Rules of 1996”) and the Circular dated 21.04.2000, issued the impugned order dated 09.07.2020 directing his compulsory retirement. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the said action as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the settled principles governing compulsory retirement in public service.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the annexures attached with the writ petition.

4. Upon thoughtful consideration of the pleadings and the record placed before this Court, it emerges that the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 09.07.2020 has been passed on the ostensible ground of “ineffectiveness” of the petitioner while invoking Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996. At the outset, it is noticed that the petitioner entered the service of the respondent department as Sub-Inspector vide order dated 19.08.1996 and was thereafter promoted to the post of Inspector (Police) on 20.02.2009. The service career of the petitioner spans more than two decades and, prima facie, reflects a long tenure of regular service.

5. It is not in dispute that during the period between 2000 and 2019, the petitioner was subjected to certain minor penalties, including censures and stoppage of increments, on allegations of supervisory negligence and allied lapses. However, it is equally undisputed that these penalties were of a minor nature and stood concluded at the relevant point of time. To rely upon such concluded punishments as the sole foundation for compulsory retirement would, in the considered opinion of this Court, partake the character of a second punishment for the same set of lapses, which is impermissible in law.

6. What weighs more heavily with this Court is the consistent and meritorious service record of the petitioner as reflected from his Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter to be referred as “ACR”). The record reveals that for successive years the petitioner has been graded as “Very Good” and even “Outstanding”, particularly for the years 2012-13 to 2018-19, with two consecutive “Outstanding” gradings in 2016-17 and 2017-18. The performance record, far from depicting inefficiency, demonstrates sustained co