Compulsory retirement is not a punishment and serves public interest by weeding out ineffective employees, validated by a consistent record of penalties.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.06.2005 passed by Chairman and Managing Director of RSRTC, Jaipur whereby, in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 18D(1) of Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 11.06.2005.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Conductor on 13.06.1977 and his services were regularized w.e.f 03.07.1978. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although, there were certain minor punishments in the service record of the petitioner in his earlier years of service however, vide order dated 20.03.2004, the petitioner was granted benefit of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service w.e.f. 27.12.2003 and in the order dated 20.03.2004, it was mentioned that such benefits of selection grade have been granted in compliance of a recommendation of Selection Committee and with observations that the services of the petitioner were found satisfactory.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 20.03.2004, would give rise to the presumption that the services of the petitioner have been assessed by the competent authority and found satisfactory. Penalties, if any, inflicted earlier in the service record of the petitioner stand washed off soon after granting benefit of selection grade.

4. Learned counsel submits that ignoring the fact that in March, 2005, the petitioner was granted benefit of selection grade, within a period of three months thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of RSRTC dated 02.06.2005 whereby, the petitioner was compulsorily retired on completion of 25 years of service with the Corporation, showing it to be in the interest of Corporation.

5. Learned counsel submits that thus, it is quite apparent and manifest that the exercise of power by CMD RSRTC is based upon malicious consideration and the entire record of the petitioner has not been examined objectively. The action of the respondents in compulsorily retiring the petitioner is self- contradictory and under the circumstances, petitioner cannot be held to be either useless or ineffective employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that retiring petitioner at premature stage has caused him serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Tej Singh Shekhawat, 2008 (4) WLC (Raj.) 135, as well as the judgment passed by Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Laxman Singh Rana & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2011 (2) WLC (Raj.) 417, Kadir Ahmad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2003 (3) WLN 225 .

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and defended the impugned order and submitted that the case of the petitioner along with his entire service record was duly considered by the Competent Authority and after considering the same, it was found that there were around 29 penalties and pending charge-sheets against the petitioner, details of such penalties and charge-sheets have been given in Annexure-R/3 enclosed with the reply to the writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that provision with regard to retiring a person compulsorily at premature stage has been framed with the sole object to weed out i