Past Minor Penalties Can't Trump Consistent 'Outstanding' Service Record: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Compulsory Retirement

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the order of compulsory retirement of a police inspector based on “ineffectiveness”, opining it to be arbitrary and based on selective reliance on minor penalties while ignoring his consistent outstanding service record that reflected “good” and “very good” performance.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the State failed to follow the binding guidelines under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (“the Rules”) and the circular dated April 21, 2000 issued by the Department of Personnel (DoP) that laid down that if compulsory retirement was proposed based on “ineffectiveness”, the employee's performance of past 5 years had to be considered primarily.

“There appears to be a manifest dichotomy and self contradiction in the action of the respondents…A person whose performance has been adjudged as excellent and outstanding cannot, in the same breath, be branded as ineffective and consequently shown the door. This glaring inconsistency strikes at the root of fairness and reasonableness and renders the impugned action vitiated by non application of mind.”

The petitioner was serving as police inspector and had a consistently meritorious service record as reflected by his Annual Appraisal Reports. However, the State issued the order directing for his compulsory retirement on the ground of “ineffectiveness”, without assigning any reasons or following the mandates as mentioned above. Hence, the petition was filed.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that between 2000 and 2019, the petitioner was subjected to minor penalties, however, these were minor in nature and stood concluded.

While underscoring the mandate laid down by the circular issued by DoP in April 2000, the Court opined that the State completely ignored the service records of the petitioner and their decision predominantly rested on old and minor penalties.

The Court observed that to solely rely on such concluded punishments to direct compulsory retirement amounted to the retirement obtaining the character of second punishment for same set of lapses, which was not permissible under law.

It was stated that Rule 53(1) of the Rules that provided power for compulsory retirement did not contemplate punishment in the garb of compulsory retirement. Such power had to be exercised strictly in public interest and that too based on holistic assessment of the employee's service records, and cogent material.

“The expression “has lost his utility” presupposes a consistent pattern of inefficiency, incompetence or doubtful integrity, duly reflected in the service record, and not a mere subjective impression or selective reliance on adverse entries. The exercise of power under Rule 53(1) must satisfy the twin tests of public interest and objective assessment of the entire service profile.”

In this background, the State's approach was held to be inherently arbitrary and legally unsustainable, that strike at the root of fairness and reasonableness.

Accordingly, the order of petitioner's compulsory retirement was set aside, and the State was directed to reinstate him.

Title: Arvind Charan v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 42

Click Here To Read/Download Order