Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its I.G Range Jaipur-I – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar Yadav, Compulsory Retired Sub-Inspector Police – Respondent
ORDER :
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. Instant writ petition is filed by the State of Rajasthan and others, aggrieved from the order dated 15.04.2021 in Appeal No. 1850/2005 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), with the following prayer:
"It is, that therefore, most humbly Your Lordships may be set pleased to call for the entire record of the matter and further quash and aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2021, passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal in appeal no. 1850/2005 titled as Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs State Rajasthan & Ors., exempt the penalty of Rs 2 Lacs imposed upon the then Inspector General of Police, Range-I, Jaipur, and allow the writ petition filed by the petitioners."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that after considering the service record of the respondent, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1996”). He further submitted that the record considered by the petitioners clearly indicates that 43 departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent
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 order....
Compulsory retirement under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 is an administrative action in public interest, not a punishment, and stands valid if supported by material demonstratin....
The decision to compulsorily retire a government servant under FR 56(j) must be made in public interest, and judicial scrutiny is limited to cases of mala fide exercise of power or lack of evidence. ....
The order of compulsory retirement of a judicial officer under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, is not arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or mala fide if it is ....
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.
Point of Law : Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules is an extension of “Doctrine of Pleasure”, If the employer - Union of India is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by continuing an emp....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in compulsory retirement cases, ruling that arbitrary actions without substantial evidence are impermissible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
