Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) Having completed the required 15 years of qualifying service and having attained the age of 50 years, the petitioner was accorded compulsory retirement by the State -respondents, in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996', for short) vide order dated 16th July, 2010, which has impelled him to institute the present writ proceedings praying for the following relief(s): "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction quash and set aside the order 16.7.2010 (Annexure -7) passed by the respondents with all consequential reliefs. Any other order, which this Hon'ble Court considers fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
(2.) Briefly, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised in the instant writ application needs to be first noticed. The petitioner entered the service as Sub -Inspector on 4th January, 1986. The petitioner while was posted at various places in the State of Rajasthan, was proceeded with several departmental proceedings and penalties inflicted, have been detailed out in the counter affidavit. The legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order of compulsory retirement, dated 16th July, 2010, is assailed for the order has been passed without taking into consideration the guidelines framed by the State -respondents, vide circular dated 21st April, 2000, which contemplates that the Screening Committee while undertaking scrutiny of the cases for compulsory retirement for ineffectiveness, is obliged to take into consideration the actual performance of the incumbent in the preceeding five years, whereas in the instant case at hand, the Screening Committee, taking into consideration the 'entire service record' of the petitioner right from 1988 onwards, concluded on the issue of compulsory retirement of the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred by virtue of provisio to Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Gayatri Rathore, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, has laid more emphasis on the fact that entire record was considered and that too without proper application of mind as would be evident from the recommendations made by the Screening Committee, available on record as Annexure -R/1. According to the learned counsel, the order dated 14th December, 1988, inflicting a penalty of censure, was never issued for the petitioner was informed to that effect, in response to an application submitted, under the Right To Information Act, 2005, which has been placed on record as Annexure -8 dated 21st February, 2012, with the rejoinder of the reply. However, the penalty imposed vide order dated 28th April, 1990, is in dispute.;