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 demonstrating lost utility or doubtful integrity, regardless of acquittal in criminal cases or recent satisfactory performance reports.

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 21/04/2026

DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 21/04/2026

FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : FULL ORDER

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/05/2026

1) The present writ petition has been directed against the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, in Appeal No. 932/2011, whereby the order of compulsory retirement dated 16.05.2011 passed against the private respondent, was set aside and directions were issued for his reinstatement.

2) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the private respondent was working as a constable. He had completed 15 years of qualifying service and had also attained the age of 50 years. The petitioners, by invoking Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”), compulsorily retired the private respondent in the public interest. Prior to passing the order of compulsory retirement, the case of the private respondent was examined by the Screening Committee, which recommended his compulsory retirement to the Review Committee. The Review Committee concurred with the findings of the Screening Committee and also recommended the compulsory retirement of the private respondent to the Appointing Authority. The Appointing Authority, after examining the recommendations of the Screening Committee and the Review Committee, passed the order of compulsory retirement. The said order was assailed before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal set aside the said order. Hence, this writ petition.

3) During the pendency of the present writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 25.08.2021 staying the operation of the impugned order dated 10.12.2018.

4) Heard the learned counsel for both the sides.

5) The learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that an order of compulsory retirement passed under Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996 is not a punishment, and therefore, the principles of natural justice are not required to be followed. Such an order also does not require a speaking order. It was further submitted that the decision to retire the private respondent is the prerogative of the Government. However, such a decision must be based on the material available on record and on the subjective satisfaction of the Government, and it should not suffer from any mala fides or arbitrariness so as to warrant interference by this Court.

6) The learned Deputy Government Counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal, while setting aside the order of compulsory retirement, gave undue importance to the order of acquittal in a criminal case without considering the fact that in separate departmental proceedings, the charge of misconduct relating to same allegation against the private respondent had been proved and a punishment had also been imposed, which remained unchallenged. It is contended that although the private respondent was acquitted in the criminal case, such acquittal has no bearing on the departmental proceedings, which have attained finality. The standard of proof in departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings is different. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal, which placed undue reliance on the order of acquittal passed by the criminal court/High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdicti