Raj HC upholds compulsory retirement of police sub-inspector; quashes RSCAT order

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court on March 27, 2026 allowed a writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan, holding that the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order of compulsory retirement, as the subject of compulsory retirement does not fall within the definition of “service matter” under Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Service Matters Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain ruled that any order passed by the Tribunal without jurisdiction is a nullity and, setting aside the Tribunal’s order dated April 15, 2021, also dismissed the appeal filed by the retired Sub-Inspector before the Tribunal.

Vijay Kumar Yadav was appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the Rajasthan Police on July 31, 1978 by way of direct recruitment. Over the course of his service, 43 departmental proceedings were initiated against him, resulting in various punishments ranging from censure to stoppage of increment. On July 18, 2005, the Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range-I exercised power under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and issued an order compulsorily retiring Yadav from service in public interest, after he had completed the requisite qualifying service. In lieu of three months’ notice, the IGP enclosed a bank draft representing the pay and allowances for that notice period.

The DGP, Rajasthan Police subsequently realised that the matter should have been sent for prior approval of the State Level Committee constituted under a Department of Personnel circular dated March 7, 2001, and a further circular dated April 30, 2002 issued by the Secretary to the Government, which required that proposals for compulsory retirement be cleared by a High Powered Committee and approved by the Minister for Personnel. The DGP sent a letter dated January 23, 2006 to the State Government disclosing that 76 police personnel — including 5 Inspectors, 24 Sub-Inspectors, and 47 Assistant Sub-Inspectors — had been compulsorily retired and that, due to an inadvertent mistake, the prior approval had not been obtained. The State Government granted post-facto approval to all these cases on April 26, 2006.

Yadav challenged the order of compulsory retirement before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No. 1850/2005. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by its order dated April 15, 2021, setting aside the compulsory retirement order and observing that the IGP had acted in a “high-handed manner and without the authority of law”. The Tribunal directed that Yadav be entitled to pension and other retirement benefits computed from the date of the original retirement order, and further imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the then IGP, Range-I, Jaipur, directing that the amount be recovered from his pension in instalments of not less than Rs. 25,000 per month if he had already retired. Aggrieved by this order, the State of Rajasthan, the DGP Rajasthan Police, and the Home Secretary filed the present writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Soumitra Chaturvedi (Deputy Government Counsel) along with Mr. Shubham Sharma, submitted before the Court that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal in the first place, since “compulsory retirement” is not enumerated in any of the clauses of Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Service Matters Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976, which exhaustively defines the term “service matter”. Counsel further contended that, in any event, Yadav had not submitted a statutory representation against the retirement order as required before approaching the Tribunal, thereby disentitling him from filing the appeal under Section 4A of the Act of 1976.

On the merits, counsel submitted that Yadav’s service record, which reflected 43 departmental proceedings, amply justified the decision to retire him in public interest under Rule 53(1). It was also pointed out that the State Government had granted post-facto approval to the retirement order on April 26, 2006, which the Tribunal had failed to consider, notwithstanding that this approval predated the Tribunal’s decision by several years. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Chandra Singh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (2003) 6 SCC 545.

The respondent, Vijay Kumar Yadav, defended his case in person. He submitted that the IGP had acted in haste and without complying with the DOP circular dated April 30, 2002, which mandated prior approval of the High Powered Committee before issuance of a compulsory retirement order. He argued that the disciplinary authority had also failed to take into account his latest annual performance reports before passing the order, which, he contended, reflected no adverse entries in the last four years. He characterised the action as discriminatory and an instance of malice in law, submitting that the department had misrepresented his case and acted in breach of the prescribed procedure to target him specifically. He placed reliance upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr. vs. Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada, (1992) 2 SCC 299, and several other judgments to argue that the Tribunal’s order was correct.

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain examined Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976 in detail. The provision defines “service matter” to mean matters relating to seniority, promotion, confirmation, fixation of pay, orders varying pay or allowances to the disadvantage of a government servant otherwise than as a penalty, reversion from a higher post otherwise than as a penalty, withholding of pension otherwise than as a penalty, transfer from one place or post to another, and any other matter notified by the Government. The Court noted that compulsory retirement does not figure in any of these categories and could not reasonably be read as incidental to them. Holding that the Tribunal is a creature of statute and can exercise only such jurisdiction as is conferred upon it by law, the Court declared that the Tribunal had “committed a serious mistake” by assuming jurisdiction without even assigning any reason for doing so.

On the Section 4A objection, the Court observed that Rule 53(4) of the Pension Rules, 1996 — which permits an employee to make a representation within 30 days — does not constitute an alternative remedy in the sense contemplated by Section 4A. Since the only effective forum for challenging a non-stigmatic, non-punitive order of compulsory retirement is the High Court under Article 226, the Tribunal’s rejection of the State’s Section 4A objection, though correct in result, required no further analysis.

Turning to the merits, the Court noted that the post-facto approval granted by the State Government on April 26, 2006 was a significant fact that the Tribunal had completely overlooked. The Tribunal had referred to a letter dated June 23, 2006, though no such letter was traceable on the record, and had apparently confused it with the DGP’s letter of January 23, 2006 seeking post-facto approval. The Court found that since the Government itself had accorded full approval, no inference of malice or illegality could be drawn. On the charge of malice in law, the Court emphasised that malice in law requires a wrongful act done intentionally without legal justification. It found that neither before the Tribunal nor before the High Court had any material been placed on record showing that Yadav was singled out or targeted; on the contrary, 76 police personnel had been compulsorily retired simultaneously, and the approval process had been delayed due to what the DGP had described as an inadvertent mistake.

Relying on a line of Supreme Court precedents — including Central Industrial Security Force vs. HC GD Omprakash, (2022) 5 SCC 100; Union of India vs. Col. J.N. Sinha and Ors., (1970) 2 SCC 458; T.G. Shivacharana Singh vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 SC 280; Arun Kumar Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1015; and Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 10 SCC 693 — the Court affirmed that the authority passing a compulsory retirement order must consider the entire service record, that the recent entries carry their own weight, and that the order is grounded in the doctrine of pleasure under Article 310 of the Constitution. The Court found that the authority had considered Yadav’s overall service record and that non-observance of the pre-approval circular, cured by post-facto approval, was insufficient to characterise the retirement order as illegal or malicious.

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan and others. The impugned order dated April 15, 2021 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No. 1850/2005 was quashed and set aside. The appeal preferred by Vijay Kumar Yadav before the Tribunal was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.