JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was compulsorily retired under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 vide order dated January 31, 1986 of the Municipal Council, Tonk. Review Petition submitted by the petitioner before the State Government was dismissed on February 6, 1988. This writ petition involves a challenge to the aforesaid order. 2. The petitioner had entered the service of the then Municipal Board, Tonk as Nakedar on January 1, 1950. He was promoted as Lower Division Clerk in 1952 and then as House Tax Inspector in the year 1977. According to the petitioner his work had been adversely commented upon. During the period of his service neither he was punished for any delinquency nor was conveyed with any adverse remarks. There was no material against the petitioner on the basis of which any opinion could possibly be formed that he was not fit to be retained in public service or that he had outlived his utility. The order of retirement had been passed on the basis of some anonymous complaints. The order of retirement is arbitrary and is not justified under Rule 244(2) of the RSR. The review committee also did not properly peruse the service record of the petitioner. 3. In the written statement main contention of the respondent Municipal Council is that decision was taken to retire the petitioner on the basis of opinion of the Revenue Inspector according to which the petitioner had been instrumental in theft of octroi in the year 1985. The petitioner submitted rejoinder to the reply. 4. On November 24, 1991 I directed learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipal Council to produce entire service record of the petitioner on the next date but the Municipal Council failed to produce it. 5. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material available on the file. 6. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Ishar Chand Jain, 1999 AIR SC 1298 : 1999(2) SCT 353 (SC) propounded thus : "Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. 6. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Ishar Chand Jain, 1999 AIR SC 1298 : 1999(2) SCT 353 (SC) propounded thus : "Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on the evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary, in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material in short; if it is found to be a perverse order." 7. Keeping in view the aforequoted principles, I proceed to lift the veil of the orders under challenge. 8. A close scrutiny of material on record available on the file demonstrates that except the pleading in para 10 of the written statement filed by the Municipal Council, Tonk, there is absolutely no material on the basis of which an opinion could have been formed that it was in the public interest to retire the petitioner from service prematurely. In para 10 of the written statement it has been averred that "the Revenue Officer had opined that the petitioner has been instrumental in theft of octroi in the year 1985 and that is why it was thought fit that he should be compulsorily retired." There is no material forthcoming as to on what basis the Revenue Officer had given his opinion against the petitioner. Was there any report against the petitioner involving him in the act of committing theft of cotroi in the year 1985 ? If no such report was there then how the petitioner was instrumental in theft of octroi ? There is absolutely no adverse material on the record which has a close nexus with the point of time when decision for retirement of petitioner was taken. The Reviewing Authority also did not subjectively assess the record of the petitioner in order to ascertain the true character of the retirement. I am thus satisfied that the impugned orders are arbitrary being based on no evidence. 9. The petitioner would have undisputedly superannuated in normal course on November 30, 1990. The Reviewing Authority also did not subjectively assess the record of the petitioner in order to ascertain the true character of the retirement. I am thus satisfied that the impugned orders are arbitrary being based on no evidence. 9. The petitioner would have undisputedly superannuated in normal course on November 30, 1990. As per averments made in the rejoinder the petitioner was out of job and without any work till 1992. These averments have not been countered by the respondents. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed, the impugned orders dated January 31, 1986 and February 6, 1988 stand set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in regular service till November 30, 1990 and thereafter to give him pensionary benefits as have been given to similarly placed employees. The petitioner shall be entitled to arrears of salary and all consequential benefits from January 31, 1986 to November 30, 1990 along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Costs easy.Petition allowed. *******