ORDER : 1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.06.2005 passed by Chairman and Managing Director of RSRTC, Jaipur whereby, in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 18D(1) of Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 11.06.2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Conductor on 13.06.1977 and his services were regularized w.e.f 03.07.1978. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although, there were certain minor punishments in the service record of the petitioner in his earlier years of service however, vide order dated 20.03.2004, the petitioner was granted benefit of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service w.e.f. 27.12.2003 and in the order dated 20.03.2004, it was mentioned that such benefits of selection grade have been granted in compliance of a recommendation of Selection Committee and with observations that the services of the petitioner were found satisfactory. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 20.03.2004, would give rise to the presumption that the services of the petitioner have been assessed by the competent authority and found satisfactory. Penalties, if any, inflicted earlier in the service record of the petitioner stand washed off soon after granting benefit of selection grade. 4. Learned counsel submits that ignoring the fact that in March, 2005, the petitioner was granted benefit of selection grade, within a period of three months thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of RSRTC dated 02.06.2005 whereby, the petitioner was compulsorily retired on completion of 25 years of service with the Corporation, showing it to be in the interest of Corporation. 5. Learned counsel submits that thus, it is quite apparent and manifest that the exercise of power by CMD RSRTC is based upon malicious consideration and the entire record of the petitioner has not been examined objectively. The action of the respondents in compulsorily retiring the petitioner is self- contradictory and under the circumstances, petitioner cannot be held to be either useless or ineffective employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that retiring petitioner at premature stage has caused him serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice. 6. The action of the respondents in compulsorily retiring the petitioner is self- contradictory and under the circumstances, petitioner cannot be held to be either useless or ineffective employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that retiring petitioner at premature stage has caused him serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Tej Singh Shekhawat, 2008 (4) WLC (Raj.) 135 , as well as the judgment passed by Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Laxman Singh Rana & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2011 (2) WLC (Raj.) 417, Kadir Ahmad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2003 (3) WLN 225 . 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and defended the impugned order and submitted that the case of the petitioner along with his entire service record was duly considered by the Competent Authority and after considering the same, it was found that there were around 29 penalties and pending charge-sheets against the petitioner, details of such penalties and charge-sheets have been given in Annexure-R/3 enclosed with the reply to the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that provision with regard to retiring a person compulsorily at premature stage has been framed with the sole object to weed out inefficient and ineffective employees so as to maintain efficiency in the administration. Looking to the consistent penalties/charge- sheets, it is clear that the petitioner had lost his utility in the Department hence, merely, the fact that he was granted financial upgradation in the form of selection grade, would not wash off 29 penalties/charge-sheets against the petitioner. She submitted that even otherwise, compulsory retirement is not a punishment and the employee is entitled for all the terminal benefits as per prevailing rules/regulations. She submitted that the entire exercise has been done quite bonafidely and on the basis of the record of the petitioner, in which there is no element of mala fides. Hence, she prayed for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. She submitted that the entire exercise has been done quite bonafidely and on the basis of the record of the petitioner, in which there is no element of mala fides. Hence, she prayed for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is not a matter of dispute that there are as many as 29 penalties/charge-sheets in the service record of the petitioner, which were imposed upon the petitioner in regular intervals ranging from June 1989 to March 2004. 11. It is also settled proposition of law that while examining the case for compulsory retirement, the Screening Committee can take into consideration the penalties imposed upon the petitioner during his entire service. Looking to the large number of penalties consistently imposed upon the petitioner, it can be safely held that on account of his unsatisfactory performance, the petitioner had lost his utility in the Department, therefore, order of compulsory retirement was passed to ensure efficient and effective functioning of the Government by weeding out the employees, who were no longer useful. 12. So far as, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has already undergone the punishments earlier imposed upon him, therefore, punishing him again with order of compulsory retirement would amount to double jeopardy, in considered opinion of this Court is totally misconceived. It is settled proposition of law that order of compulsory retirement while passed during the exercise of weeding out inefficient and ineffective employees under Rule 18D(1) is not a punishment. Even after passing such order of compulsory retirement, the employee is entitled for pension as per the Rules, therefore, no element of double jeopardy is involved in such matters. 13. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel , 2001 (3) SCC 314 , after analysing several judgments earlier given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been observed as under: "11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead-wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure." 14. Similarly, in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Das , 1996 (5) SCC 331 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "7 ..... The object always is public interest. The material question is whether the entire record of service was considered or not? It is not for the court/tribunal to see whether the decision of the Government compulsorily retire the government servant is justified or not. It is for the Government to consider the same and take a proper decision in that behalf. As stated earlier, it is settled law that the Government is required to consider the entire record of service. Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a ground to note compulsory retirement of the government servant could not be ordered. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable prudent man would the Government or competent officer reach that decision. We find that selfsame material after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any. But that material undoubtedly would be available to the Government to consider the overall expediency or necessity to continue the government servant in service after he attained the required length of service or qualified period of service for pension. We find that selfsame material after promotion may not be taken into consideration only to deny him further promotion, if any. But that material undoubtedly would be available to the Government to consider the overall expediency or necessity to continue the government servant in service after he attained the required length of service or qualified period of service for pension. It is also made clear that in this case adverse entries were made only after promotion and not earlier to promotion. Compulsory retirement is not a punishment. He is entitled to all the pensionary benefits." 15. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mool Chand Jadam Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 806/2022 decided on 02.05.2025 has observed as under :- "21. After analyzing the aforesaid judgments it can be deduced that the key reason for compulsory retirement is to ensure efficient and effective government functioning by weeding out such employees whose services are no longer useful. 22. By now it is also well settled that a decision of compulsorily retirement is based on subjective satisfaction of the government, which is derived on the basis of entire service record of concerned employee. 23. In the facts and circumstances of this case, after having a glance over large number of penalties and adverse entries in service record of the appellant, we are satisfied that the State Government has rightly taken a decision in public interest to retire the appellant at a premature stage." 16. This Court in the case of Udai Ram Jangir Vs. Managing Director, RSRTC & Anr. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2996/2003 decided on 06.08.2025 has held as under :- "7. Bare perusal of the writ petition would reveal that the petitioner has categorically stated that his service career was unblemished as neither any charge sheet was issued to him, nor any enquiry was pending against him, whereas Schedule A appended to reply to writ petition would reveal that as many as 24 charge sheets were issued to the petitioner, mostly on account of carrying passengers without tickets. Six charge sheets were pending for conclusion whereas in other 18 charge sheets, the petitioner was punished with different penalties. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has deliberately and consciously suppressed the facts which are otherwise material for adjudication of the dispute relating to compulsory retirement. Six charge sheets were pending for conclusion whereas in other 18 charge sheets, the petitioner was punished with different penalties. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has deliberately and consciously suppressed the facts which are otherwise material for adjudication of the dispute relating to compulsory retirement. Hence, only on the ground of concealment of material facts, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. 8. It is settled proposition of law that compulsory retirement is not a punishment, nor can be said to be a stigma. It is an administrative exercise, in order to weed out ineffective and inefficient employees in public interest. The petitioner in the instant case has not levelled any allegation of mala fides or extraneous considerations while passing the impugned order. Hence, the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being quite limited, this Court finds that no procedural error has been committed by the respondent-Corporation in issuing the impugned order. The order has been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of clause 18D(1) of the Standing Orders of 1965 and there is no infirmity in the impugned order." 17. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kumar Indu Bhushan Vs. Union of India & Ors. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14949/2020 decided on 27.04.2022 has held as under :- "Thus, there is no malafide, no arbitrariness and no perversity on the part of the Review Committee while arriving at a subjective satisfaction of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner. It ought to be kept in mind that compulsory retirement is not a punishment. Such compulsory retired Government servant does not lose any benefits earned by him till the date of his retirement. In view of these decisions and looking to the conclusion arrived at by the Respondents of compulsorily retirement of the Petitioner, it cannot be said that the Respondents were driven by extraneous, malicious, perverse, unreasonable or arbitrary considerations. There was no procedural error committed by the Review Committee and the authorities while taking decisions under Rule 16(3) of the Rules of 1958. There is no perversity and arbitrariness in the order of the Review Committee. There was no procedural error committed by the Review Committee and the authorities while taking decisions under Rule 16(3) of the Rules of 1958. There is no perversity and arbitrariness in the order of the Review Committee. The decision is based upon the entire service record, performance of the petitioner and usefulness of the petitioner into the service of the respondents and looking to totality of the facts and circumstances against the petitioner, subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the Review Committee. We are not sitting in appeal against the subjective satisfaction of the Review Committee. The Review Committee was composed of high and responsible Officers. The power is vested in the government alone and not in the minor officials. Therefore, the government after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly passed the order of premature retirement of the petitioner under Rule 16(3) of the Rules of 1958 in exercise of the rights conferred on the government to retire a government servant after he has served for a certain period to the government. Thus, in this view of the matter, the petitioner was given compulsory retirement by the authorities, after due application of mind, in public interest under Rule 16(3) of the Rules of 1958, after considering the report of the Review Committee and the entire material available on record, with subjective satisfaction. It is also evident from the record that the conduct of the petitioner was not good and his work performance was not upto the mark throughout his service tenure, which warranted his compulsory retirement under Rule 16(3) of the Rules of 1958. Thus, it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was passed without application of mind or insufficient material on record or not in public interest." 18. In the light of consistent principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in the above judgments, it is clear that the petitioner who was having 29 penalties/charge-sheets in his service record could not have been considered as useful and effective employee any longer in the respondent-Corporation. In the light of consistent principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in the above judgments, it is clear that the petitioner who was having 29 penalties/charge-sheets in his service record could not have been considered as useful and effective employee any longer in the respondent-Corporation. The washed off theory has been proposed by learned counsel for the petitioner, in comparison to the adversities/penalties in the record of the petitioner, cannot be sustained and the order of compulsory retirement cannot be quashed on the ground that against 29 penalties/charge-sheets, there was an order of grant of selection grade to the petitioner. 19. As regards the judgment of Kadir Ahmad (supra) relied by the petitioner, it is sufficient to observe that the case in hand is altogether different. In that case of penalties imposed upon the employee were only four in number along with adverse remarks in his service record therefore, in the eventuality of granting selection grade, the Coordinate Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that such benefits could not have been ignored by the Department. In the instant case, where there are around 29 penalties/ charge-sheets against the petitioner, which is sufficient to prove that the petitioner has out-lived his utility in the Department. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of Laxman Singh Rana (supra), which was a case where the employee had no penalty whatsoever in his entire service career, hence, such judgment is of no help to the petitioner. Similarly, in judgment of Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Tej Singh Shekhawat (supra), there were three penalties in the record of the employee in comparison to 29 penalties/charge-sheets endured by the petitioner. Hence, such judgment is also not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 21. In the light of foregoing discussions and after examining the record, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent-Corporation. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed for want of any substance and merit. 22. In the light of foregoing discussions and after examining the record, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent-Corporation. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed for want of any substance and merit. 22. In the light of foregoing discussions and after examining the record, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent-Corporation. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed for want of any substance and merit.