The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has quashed the compulsory retirement of a police inspector, calling the government’s action arbitrary and contrary to its own rules. In a detailed judgment, the court held that the authorities failed to properly assess the officer’s service record and relied only on old, minor penalties. The bench directed the state to reinstate the officer with notional benefits from the date he was forced to retire.
Background of the Case
The case was filed by Arvind Charan, who joined the police service as a Sub-Inspector in 1996 and was promoted to Inspector in 2009. Over the years, his service record showed repeated “Very Good” and even “Outstanding” gradings in his annual reports, especially between 2012 and 2019.
Read also:- Supreme Court Collegium Clears Five Retired Judges as Ad Hoc Appointments for Allahabad High Court
In July 2020, while he still had about 13 years of service left, the police department issued an order compulsorily retiring him under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. The reason given was “ineffectiveness”.
Challenging this decision, Charan approached the High Court, arguing that the order was passed without following the required procedure and ignored his strong recent performance.
What the Court Examined
Justice Farjand Ali closely examined the service record placed before the court. The judge noted that while the officer had faced a few minor penalties like censures in the past, these were old and had already been concluded.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Steps In as DrNB Trainee Battles Cancer and Leave Rules, Orders NBEMS to Reconsider Case
The court found it troubling that the authorities relied mainly on these past minor issues while overlooking years of strong performance. The judgment records that for several recent years, the officer had been graded “Very Good” and “Outstanding,” including two consecutive “Outstanding” entries.
The bench observed, in substance, that compulsory retirement is meant to remove “dead wood” in public interest, not to punish an employee by picking and choosing old, minor faults.
The court pointed out that Rule 53(1) and a 2000 government circular require a proper, fair review of the entire service record. When retirement is proposed on the ground of “ineffectiveness,” special importance must be given to the employee’s performance in the preceding five years.
Read also:- Supreme Court Revives Cheque Bounce Complaint, Says Justice Demands Restoration of Dismissed Case
Here, the court found that this was not done. The recent, positive records were not given due weight. Instead, the decision rested mainly on stale and minor penalties.
“This kind of selective approach,” the court noted, “shows non-application of mind and makes the decision legally unsustainable.”
Court’s Observations
The bench made it clear that compulsory retirement, though not a formal punishment, is still a serious step and must be used carefully and fairly.
It also said that branding an officer as “ineffective” while his recent records show “Outstanding” performance is a clear contradiction. Such inconsistency, the court held, strikes at the root of fairness and reasonableness in administration.
Read also:- Late Arbitration Award Can Survive: Supreme Court Clarifies Power to Extend Arbitrator’s Mandate
The judge further noted that small issues like a delay in sending case diaries or a single absence from duty cannot justify such an extreme action, especially when the later service record is clean and strong.
Decision
In its final order, the High Court allowed the writ petition. It set aside the compulsory retirement order dated 9 July 2020 and directed the authorities to reinstate the officer in service with all notional benefits from that date.
The court concluded that the impugned order suffered from arbitrariness, violation of mandatory guidelines, and lack of proper application of mind and therefore could not stand in law.
Case Title: Arvind Charan vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12748/2020
