[2026:RJ-JP:668]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2283/2002 Gopal Lal Agarwal aged about 47 years son of Shri Nemi Chand, R/o 49-A, Jawahar Colony, Jhalawar ----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal through its Registrar, Mini Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur

2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Van Bhawan, Rajasthan, Jaipur

3. Divisional Forest Officer, Jhalawar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pulkit Bhardwaj on behalf of Mr. Yash Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

08/01/2026

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, where he has assailed legality and validity of order of compulsory retirement dated 19.05.2000 and also challenged order dated 09.08.2001 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against order of compulsory retirement has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Forester in Forest Department on 02.09.1974. Initially, on account of some incidents of trivial nature, punishments were imposed in earlier part of services of the petitioner, however, such punishments were not of such nature as to render the petitioner ineffective and inefficient. However, merely on account of the fact that the petitioner had completed 15 years of service and age of 50 years, vide order dated 19.05.2000 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Jhalawar, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1951') and Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension)

Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996').

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the purpose of exercising of powers under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996, the Screening Committee or Reviewing Committee was required to consider the record of the petitioner objectively and a definite view was required to be arrived at that the petitioner on account of his indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of official duties, has lost his utility. Learned counsel submits that impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 19.05.2000 does not contain any such reasons. Thus, the mandatory requirement of Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 has not been complied with by passing order dated 19.05.2000.

4. Leaned counsel submits that although there were some penalties on account of alleged misconduct in the record of the petitioner, yet the petitioner had already suffered the rigour of such punishments, therefore, on the basis of such earlier punishments, passing an order of compulsory retirement amounts to double jeopardy, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that unilaterally decision has not been taken by the respondents and different yardsticks have been adopted for different persons and even some of the persons have been taken back in service, even after passing of order of compulsory retirement but such benefit was not granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that feeling aggrieved, by passing of compulsory retirement order dated 19.05.2000, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.806/2000 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, however, the Appellate Tribunal instead of examining the order of compulsory retirement, qua the record of the petitioner objectively, by giving perverse findings dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant in mechanical manner. The petitioner prayed for quashing of order dated 09.08.2001 passed by the Tribunal as well as order of compulsory retirement dated 19.05.2000 and to grant all the consequential benefits.

5. Writ petition filed by the petitioner has been opposed by the Governmen