Compulsory retirement is a non-punitive, administrative action based on service performance. It does not constitute a 'service matter' as defined by statutory provisions governing appellate tribunals; therefore, such tribunals lack the jurisdiction to review or set aside compulsory retirement orders.

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 and, in these proceedings, the respondent was awarded different punishments, which include censure to stoppage of increment. He further referred to the government decision and submitted that, to enhance efficiency and competency in the public system, the person with a tainted record has been removed under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996. He further submitted that the respondent has completed the minimum qualifying service as prescribed under the rule to attract the invocation of the rule, and the order was passed in public interest. He also submitted that neither there is any mala fide nor any bias against the respondent and merely on the basis of a drive to clean up the administration, the decision was taken by the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further raised the issue of jurisdiction under Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Service Matters Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1976"), and submitted that the subject of "compulsory retirement" is not a matter assigned for adjudication by the Tribunal. He further referred to the non-consideration of objections raised by the petitioners, particularly under Section 4A of the Act of 1976, and submitted that the respondent has filed an appeal without submitting representation to the petitioners, and the same is not entertainable by the Tribunal.

4. He further referred to the post facto approval by the High Power Committee and the State Government and submitted that, after taking a decision in accordance with Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996, the DGP, Rajasthan Police, has sent a proposal for post facto approval, and the same was granted on 26.04.2006, but the Tribunal has not considered the post facto approval as the appeal was decided several years after the post facto approval. He placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Chandra Singh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. , reported as (2003) 6 SCC 545.

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the respondent himself, who defended his case in person. He submitted that, without compliance of DOP circular and