Court Finds Non-Adherence to Mandatory Guidelines and Arbitrary Decision in Retirement Order
The Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Farjand Ali, has set aside the compulsory retirement order of Arvind Charan, a Police Inspector, deeming it arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The judgment was delivered on January 28, 2026, concerning a writ petition filed by Charan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated July 9, 2020, which mandated his retirement from service.
The court meticulously examined the petitioner's service records and the procedural adherence of the retirement decision under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. The court identified significant lapses in the evaluation process, including the failure to consider Charan's recent performance, which was consistently rated "Very Good" and "Outstanding" in his Annual Confidential Reports over several years. The impugned order relied on minor penalties and past records without a holistic assessment, which Justice Ali highlighted as impermissible and akin to a second punishment for the same infractions.
Justice Ali emphasized that the rule governing compulsory retirement requires a fair and objective assessment of an employee's entire service record. The decision should not be punitive or based on isolated incidents. The judgment referenced several judicial precedents which underscore the importance of valid and cogent material in forming the subjective satisfaction necessary for compulsory retirement.
The court noted the non-compliance with the circular dated April 21, 2000, which mandates the consideration of actual performance over the preceding five years in cases of alleged ineffectiveness. The decision-makers neglected to weigh Charan's meritorious service record, which contradicts the grounds of ineffectiveness cited for his retirement.
Consequently, the court directed the reinstatement of Charan with all notional benefits from the date of his compulsory retirement. This decision serves as a reminder for public authorities to adhere strictly to procedural guidelines and ensure fairness in administrative decisions.
Bottom Line:
Compulsory retirement order quashed for non-adherence to Rule 53(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, failure to evaluate recent performance, and reliance on minor past penalties.
Statutory provision(s): Rule 53(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996
Arvind Charan v. State Of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc id # 2848992
