ORDER : The petitioner who was working on the post of Machanic Gr.III at Dausa Depot-RSRTC has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dt.25.03.2000 whereby the employer/corporation exercised the powers conferred by Rule 18D (1) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 and the petitioner has been retired compulsorily w.e.f. 28.03.2000. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Cleaner at Ajmer and he was further promoted on the post of Machanic Gr.III posted at Dausa Depot at the time passing of the order of compulsory retirement dt.25.03.2000. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that his service record has always been up to the mark and there was no adverse remarks communicated to him. 3. The petitioner has pleaded that charge-sheet which was given to him relates to the periods which were prior to 1981 and despite of such fact, the order of compulsory retirement was passed. The petitioner has pleaded that he was given chargesheets in the year 1978, 1980 & 1981 for remaining absent from duty and these were decided by order dt.26.07.1996. The petitioner has further pleaded in his petition that four chargesheets were given to him on 02.02.1978, 07.11.1981, 19.12.1980 & 27.04.1981, out of these four charge-sheets, two had already resulted into punishment orders which were passed in the year 1983 & 1984 and still the committee formed by the respondents, decided the same vide order dt.26.07.1996 and the order passed earlier was cancelled vide order dt.28.03.1998 passed subsequently. The petitioner also placed on record the following orders in respect of the charge-sheets where the punishments have been imposed on him. I. The order dt.26.07.1996 (Ex.2) deciding the charge-sheet given to the petitioner dt.02.02.1978 which resulted into punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. II. The order dt.26.07.1996 (Ex.-3) deciding the chargesheet dt.07.11.1981 which resulted into punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. III. The order dt.26.07.1996 (Ex.4) deciding the chargesheet dt.19.12.1980 which resulted into punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner has alleged that the same charge-sheet dt.19.12.1980 was already decided by imposing punishment vide order dt.17.01.1984 (Ex.6). IV. The order dt.26.07.1996 (Ex.5) deciding the chargesheet dt.27.04.1981 with the punishment of imposition of fine of Rs.250/- from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged that the same charge-sheet dt.19.12.1980 was already decided by imposing punishment vide order dt.17.01.1984 (Ex.6). IV. The order dt.26.07.1996 (Ex.5) deciding the chargesheet dt.27.04.1981 with the punishment of imposition of fine of Rs.250/- from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged that the charge-sheet dt.27.04.1981 was already decided by imposing the penalty vide order dt.01.09.1983. 4. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that vide order dt.28.03.1998 (Ex.-6) the respondents have cancelled the earlier punishment orders imposed in respect of charge-sheet dt.19.121980 by their order dt.26.09.1996 and the charge-sheet dt.27.04.1981 by order dt.26.07.1996 and the respondents have further passed the order for treating the punishments to be imposed as per report dt.26.07.1996. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents have acted in arbitrary manner in issuing the order dt.28.03.1998 and earlier orders which were passed in respect of charge-sheets, had already resulted into punishments and only in order to bring the petitioner for screening before the committee for the purpose of compulsory retirement, the exercise was undertaken. 6. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that the impugned order passed against him suffers from arbitrariness and the petitioner has not committed any serious misconduct in the nature of moral turpitude or case of financial loss to the corporation which could have resulted into passed of the impugned order. 7. The petitioner has also pleaded in his grounds in the petition that there were several candidates/employees who were having worst service record than him and yet they were not compulsorily retired and the petitioner has been visited with the impugned order. 8. The petitioner has also pleaded that vide order dt.12.11.1997 (Ex.-7) he was granted selection scale on completion of 18 years of service and as such the employer-corporation having found the service of the petitioner satisfactory, had granted him the said benefit and as such the order of the compulsory retirement could not have been passed. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition. 9. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition. 9. The respondents have pleaded that entire service record of the petitioner was taken into consideration and the petitioner was in fact served with nine charge-sheets from time to time and he was punished with the punishment of stoppage of annual grade increment, warning, forfeiture of amount of suspension, recovery of amount and these orders were issued from time to time and total eight punishments were awarded to the petitioner for different misconducts. 10. The respondents have pleaded that out of eight punishments in respect of different misconducts, the petitioner was given four punishments vide order dt.26.07.1996 and plea of the petitioner that once having been given benefit of selection grade, he could not have been compulsorily retired, cannot be accepted. 11. The respondents have pleaded that after taking into consideration the latest service record of the petitioner, preceding the order of compulsory retirement, the department has undertaken the exercise to retire him compulsorily. 12. Mr. Manoj Pareek, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed without due application of mind. Counsel has submitted that the Screening Committee as well as Reviewing Committee, did not take into account that all the allegations levelled against the petitioner were in respect of his absence from duty and the petitioner was never communicated with any allegation of committing misconduct in the nature of moral turpitude or causing financial loss to the corporation. 13. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of stale material as the alleged incident against the petitioner were committed long back and the petitioner had not committed any misconduct which could relate to his functioning in preceding few years prior to order of compulsory retirement. Counsel has submitted that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is arbitrary and discriminatory order. The respondents have permitted to continue those employees who have comparatively bad track record and suffered many penalties and yet by retaining them, the petitioner has been shown the door by way of compulsory retirement. 14. Counsel has submitted that the respondents have committed illegality in passing the order on 28.03.1998 by cancelling earlier punishment orders and further imposing penalty from the year 1996. 14. Counsel has submitted that the respondents have committed illegality in passing the order on 28.03.1998 by cancelling earlier punishment orders and further imposing penalty from the year 1996. Counsel submitted that in order to bring above adversities on record as fresh material in the case of the petitioner, the entire exercise was undertaken by the respondents. 15. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Prem Chand Chauhan Vs. RSRTC & Anr. reported in 2007(2) SCT 837 and in the case of Nami Chand Gupta Vs. RSRTC & Ors. reported in 2012 WLC(Raj.) UC 792. 16. Per contra, Mr. Jai Lodha, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was issued total nine charge-sheets but punishment in eight charge-sheets was imposed on the petitioner. The total service/track record of the petitioner was considered by the Screening Committee and further examined by the Reviewing Committee. Counsel has submitted that over-all record of the petitioner made it clear that he was indiscipline in service and the petitioner being deadwood was compulsorily retired by taking into account the entire service record and latest record was also kept in mind. 17. Counsel has submitted that the corporation had taken the exercise in a bonafide manner and the Review Committee constituted for the purpose considered the record/nature of allegation, punishment imposed against the petitioner and after considering the entire record, the order came to be passed, which was further placed for examination before the Review Committee. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner was not issued four charge-sheets as he has alleged in the petition, and on the contrary there were total nine charge-sheets which were issued to him. The punishments were also in the nature of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect and without cumulative effect and further the petitioner was giving warning on previous several occasions. Counsel has submitted that even if the charge of remaining absent from duty was found to be proved, the same amounts to serious misconduct. 18. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner though has not committed any offence of moral turpitude or caused financial loss to the corporation but the over-all functioning of the employee has to be kept in mind. Counsel has submitted that even if the charge of remaining absent from duty was found to be proved, the same amounts to serious misconduct. 18. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner though has not committed any offence of moral turpitude or caused financial loss to the corporation but the over-all functioning of the employee has to be kept in mind. Counsel has submitted that utility of an employee is required to be considered by the employer from different angles and if the employee has rendered himself a liability to the institution and has further lost his utility in service, the authorities after due application of mind pass the order, the same cannot be the subject matter to judicial review before this Court. Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of RSRTC & Ors. Vs. Babu Lal Jangir reported in (2013) 10 SCC 551 . 19. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the scope of judicial review in the matter of compulsory retirement is very limited. Counsel has submitted that only on the ground of non-application of mind, malafide, perversity, arbitrariness or in noncompliance of statutory duty, such power can be exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel has submitted that the power to retire compulsorily a public servant in terms of service Rule is absolute, provided the authority has formed a bonafide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest. 20. Counsel has submitted that the judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner, will not of much help to the petitioner as now the Apex Court in the case of RSRTC & Ors. (supra) has settled the law and has given direction to the authorities that they have to consider the overall performance on the basis of entire service record and than come to the conclusion that as whether the employee concerned has become deadwood in the public interest to retire compulsorily. 21. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the decision taken by the Corporation may be upheld. 22. 21. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the decision taken by the Corporation may be upheld. 22. This Court before adverting to merits of the case, deems it proper to reproduce the summary of charge-sheets and punishment imposed against the petitioner which read as under:- <font face="Kruti Dev 011"> Jh eqjkjh yky 'kekZ iq= Jh uuqok jke eSdsfud xzsM&2] nkSlk vkxkj dks feys n.M dk fooj.k </font> daz la i=koyh i`"V la[;k vkjksi i= dzekad fnukad vkjksi i= dk laf{kIr fooj.k i=koyh i`"B la[;k fu.kZ; vkns'k@fnukad n.M dk fooj.k 1- 16@ c 1809@27-10-78 xkyh xykSp@>xMk djus ckcr 142@ c 240@7-2-99 1- fuyEcu dky dk 'ks"k osru tCrA 2- Hkfo"; ds fy;s psrkouh 2- 21@ c 570@28-2-82 fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr ckcr 61@ c 703@24-2-83 1- vuq- fnuksa dks LWP esa ekuk 2- ,d AGI vLFkkbZ jksdh 3- 99@ c 2232@25-4-85 fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr ckcr 111@ c 4451@8-10-85 1- ,d AGI vLFkkbZ jksdh 2- vkjksi i= esa vafdr vof/k esa LWP Lohd`r 4- 8@ c 2336@7-11-81 Mw;Vh ls vuqifLFkr jgus ckcr o mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns'kks dh ikyuk ugha djus ds laca/k esaA 269@ c 36@ c 431@26-7-96 2192@23-8-82 1- ,d AGI vLFkkbZ jksdh xbZ 2- Hkfo"; ds fy;s psrkouh 5- 117@ c 1108@28-2-86 fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr jgus ds laca/k esaA 129@ c 686@2-2-87 vkjksi eqDr djrs gq, vkjksi i= esa of.kZr vof/k LWP [EOL] Lohd`r dh xbZA 6- 54@ c 3164@19-12-80 Mw;Vh le; esa lksus] iwoZ lwpuk ds fcuk vuqifLFkr gksuk o dk;Z ds izfr ykijokghA 157@ c 136@17-1-84 1- nks AGI vLFkkbZ jksdhA 2- Hkfo"; ds fy;s psrkouh 7- 151@ c 528@2-2-88 fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr o 400 : dh vkfFkZd gkfu 267@ c 415@26-7-96 1- nks AGI vLFkkbZ jksdhA 8- 77@ c 652@27-4-81 fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr 156@ c 2308@1-9-83] 1- ,d AGI LFkkbZ jksdhA 9- - 2674@17-12-81 - 266@ c 417@26-7-96 1- lsokfHkys[k o psrkouh 2- 250 : dk vFkZn.M 1- fopkjk/khu 100@ c 1059@19-2-85 5-2-85 dks gMrky ij jgsA uksV Jheku izcU/k funs'kd 488@6-5-86 ds }kjk psrkouh egksn; ds vkns'k la[;k vkns'k i= LFkfxr fd;k x;kA 23. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there are only four charge-sheets issued to the petitioner and they all relate to absence from duty and as such do not amount to committing moral turpitude, this Court finds that as per the summary of chart produced by the respondents there were as many as nine charge-sheets issued to the petitioner in which punishments were imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 24. The perusal of the summary of chart containing the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the punishment imposed, shows that right from 1978 onwards the petitioner was issued charge-sheets and it also includes the charge-sheet issued as back as in 1978, with respect to use of abusive language and quarrelling with the colleague in the office which resulted into only warning been given to the petitioner in the year 1999. The perusal of summary of chart further shows that the petitioner has also been found absence without any intimation to the employer on different occasions in the year 1980, 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986 & 1988. The punishments have been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on different occasions and overall record of the petitioner shows that he was punished with penalty orders on nine different occasions. 25. This Court finds that submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that material used against the petitioner was stale in nature, the perusal of penalty order passed as Ex.-2 on 26.07.1996 cannot be said to be stale for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement. 26. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have acted on stale material, is not found proved from the perusal of the summary of chart which has been produced before the Court. The overall record of the petitioner clearly reflect that the petitioner has time and again been punished and even if, the punishment orders passed earlier in respect of the charge-sheets dt.19.12.1980 & 27.04.1981, may be ignored as he was already punished by orders passed on 17.01.1984 & 01.09.1983 respectively, yet there are the other charge-sheets in which punishment against the petitioner has been imposed in the year 1996. 27. 27. The submission of the learned counsel that the corporation acted in arbitrary manner to bring cumulative effect to create a record to retire the petitioner compulsorily, this Court finds that ignoring these two punishment orders, which have been later on given effect from 1996, yet there are other punishment orders which demonstrate about functioning of the petitioner. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that stale material was used, is without any substance. 28. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in passing the order, this Court finds that the respondents while undertaking the exercise of considering the cases for the purpose of compulsory retirement in the Screening Committee, called the record of all the employees and after considering their record, the recommendations were made. The matter was further examined by the Review Committee which held its meeting on 23.03.2000. The said committee was having complete details about the persons which were to be considered for the purpose of compulsory retirement. Counsel for the respondents has placed on record the copies of complete record which was available before the Review Committee and perusal of the same shows that the petitioner had entered in service on 17.04.1968, he completed 25 years of service on 17.04.1993, completed 15 years of service on 17.04.1882, completed 50 years of age on 15.04.1995 and his normal date of retirement was 30.04.2003. 29. The record of the petitioner which was placed before the committee contained as many as ten charge-sheets and punishments given therein. The committee took into account the entire service record of the petitioner and ultimately it came to the conclusion that retention of the petitioner was not in public interest. 30. The allegation of the petitioner that he has been discriminated in the matter of compulsory retirement and persons having worst record are not visited with compulsory retirement, this Court finds that ground of discrimination is required to be taken note of by this Court if two different punishments are passed in respect of similar charges. This principle will not apply in matter of compulsory retirement. This principle will not apply in matter of compulsory retirement. This Court finds that record of all such employees has been considered by the competent authority/committee and if it is found on the basis of total service record of an employee that his retention is not in public interest, the analogy to draw the discrimination on the basis of worst record of the other candidates, cannot be a ground to set aside the order of compulsory retirement. The employer has considered the overall record of the employees whose cases are to be examined in usual manner. The allegation of the petitioner based on the theory of discrimination in respect of punishment imposed upon him, does not merit acceptance. 31. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this Court in the case of Prem Chand Chauhan and Nami Chand (supra) has taken a view that if the employee has earned promotion and having unblemished service record and chargesheet is never issued to him, the same cannot result into loss of his utility in service and as such the order of the compulsory retirement has been set aside by this Court. 32. This Court in the case of Prem Chand Chauhan (supra) has recorded in para 25 of the judgment that the petitioner in that case had a clean and unblemished record of service during 23 years of service immediately preceding the date of his compulsory retirement. The Court held that in spite of the restricted scope of judicial review in the matters relating to the compulsory retirement, in the facts of the case, reflected that no reasonable person could have arrived at a decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner inasmuch as it was seen that no adversity whatsoever was found in later 23 years of his entire service span of 27 years and as such the Court found that the petitioner had not outlived his utility to the service or had become a deadwood to be chopped off. 33. In the opinion of this Court, the said judgment was passed by this Court only on the ground that the petitioner had rendered unblemished 23 years of service and as such he had not been found to be a deadwood. The facts of the present case shows that the petitioner was visited with at least two penalties in the year 1996 by order dt.26.07.1996 (Annex.-2 & 3). 34. The facts of the present case shows that the petitioner was visited with at least two penalties in the year 1996 by order dt.26.07.1996 (Annex.-2 & 3). 34. This Court in the case of Nemi Chand (supra), found that the order of compulsory retirement in that case was as a mechanical order based on non-consideration by the Screening Committee as well as Reviewing Committee. The coordinate Bench relied upon judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1987) 2 SCC 188 . 35. This Court finds that in the instant case, the Screening Committee as well as Reviewing Committee has gone through and considered the summary of chart which was placed before them and after considering the entire service record of the petitioner found that retention of the petitioner in service was not required and as such the order was passed by the Screening Committee recommending the compulsory retirement, was approved by the Reviewing Committee. 36. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondents in the case of RSRTC (supra) the Apex Court has clearly provided the parameters while reviewing the order of the compulsory retirement. The relevant para of the judgment of the Apex Court is reproduced as under:- “24. Having taken note of the correct principles which need to be applied, we can safely conclude that the order of the High Court based solely on the judgment in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra was not correct. The High Court could not have set aside the order merely on the ground that service record pertaining to the period 1978-1990 being old and stale could not be taken into consideration at all. As per the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that entire service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the government servant needs to be eased out prematurely. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. What is to be examined is the “overall performance” on the basis of “entire service record” to come to the conclusion as to whether the employee concerned has become a deadwood and it is in public interest to effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee “rendered himself a liability to the institution”, there is no occasion for the court to interfere in exercise of its limited power of judicial review. 25. xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. The High Court has observed that the respondents have not been able to show anything adverse in the career of the respondent after 1990 i.e. in the last 12 years preceding the order of compulsory retirement. These observations are not correct inasmuch as : (a) There was an inquiry against the respondent for which he was imposed the penalty of stoppage of increment for two years. He had made a representation against the penalty on 5.11.1998 which was dismissed on 25.5.1998. (b) Further another criminal case was also instituted against him in the year 1999. Though the outcome of this criminal case is not mentioned, the fact remains that the accident was caused by the respondent while driving the bus of the appellant Corporation, and the appellant Corporation had to pay heavy compensation to the victims as a result of orders passed by MACT. Thus even the service record after 1990 does not depict a rosy picture. In any case, there is nothing to show that his performance became better during this period. 27. It hardly needs to be emphasised that the order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic. It is based on subjective satisfaction of the employer and a very limited scope of judicial review is available in such cases. In any case, there is nothing to show that his performance became better during this period. 27. It hardly needs to be emphasised that the order of compulsory retirement is neither punitive nor stigmatic. It is based on subjective satisfaction of the employer and a very limited scope of judicial review is available in such cases. Interference is permissible only on the ground of non-application of mind, mala fide, perverse, or arbitrary or if there is non-compliance with statutory duty by the statutory authority. Power to retire compulsorily the government servant in terms of service rule is absolute, provided the authority concerned forms a bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement is in public interest.” 37. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has clearly held that the entire service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the Government servant needs to be eased out prematurely and further held that subsequent record of an employee is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken, would be of more value, qualitatively. The Apex Court further held that what is to be examined is the “overall performance” on the basis of “entire service record” to come to the conclusion as to whether the employee concerned has become a deadwood and it is in public interest to retire him compulsorily. The authority is required to consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee “rendered himself a liability to the institution”, there is no occasion for the court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review. 38. This Court finds that the Apex Court in para 27 of the judgment has enumerated few grounds on which interference is permissible by the Court namely non-application of mind, malafide action, perversity, arbitrariness or non-compliance with the statutory duty by the statutory authority. 39. 38. This Court finds that the Apex Court in para 27 of the judgment has enumerated few grounds on which interference is permissible by the Court namely non-application of mind, malafide action, perversity, arbitrariness or non-compliance with the statutory duty by the statutory authority. 39. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is non-application of mind and arbitrariness by the authority, this Court finds that as far as non-application of mind is concerned, the same cannot be reflected or gathered from the facts which have come on record. The perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was visited the nine charge-sheets and the penalty orders were also passed from time to time. The authorities have taken into account the overall service record of the petitioner and after due application of mind, the decision to compulsory retire the petitioner was taken. 40. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been arbitrariness in the decision, this Court finds that the respondents had material before them on that basis a decision had been taken to retire the petitioner compulsorily, in the opinion of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it will not be possible for this Court to observe anything on the basis of the material which was available before the competent authority. The authorities have not acted in malafide manner in any case and if in the opinion of the employer the workman concerned is not performing upto mark and his service record is full of punishments and looking to the number of penalties and nature of allegations, the employer has formed an opinion to retire the petitioner compulsorily, it cannot be said that arbitrary decision was taken by the respondents. 41. This Court has taken note in the previous paras that the petitioner had rendered almost 32 years of service his was age of superannuation was 30.04.2003, while he has been compulsorily retired by order dt.25.03.2000. It is well settled that order of the compulsory retirement is not a punishment order and the petitioner gets his post retrial benefits, pension etc. on account of he being compulsorily retired from service. The compulsory retirement order has not been passed as a penalty and as such the petitioner has been getting the normal benefits which he ought to get, had he been continued to work in the organization till the full term. 42. on account of he being compulsorily retired from service. The compulsory retirement order has not been passed as a penalty and as such the petitioner has been getting the normal benefits which he ought to get, had he been continued to work in the organization till the full term. 42. This Court finds that there is no scope to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the impugned order and as such the petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.