1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Hanuman Ram Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3708/2006 Date of Order : : 24/09/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr.P.P.Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr.M.P.Goswami for Mr.Anil Bachhawat, for the respondent-RSRTC. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the order Annexure-P/1 dated 3rd June, 2005 passed by the respondent- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (for short “the RSRTC” hereinafter). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the material available on record. 2 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that by order Annexure-1 dated 3rd June, 2005, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the service. The order does not assigned any reason retiring the petitioner compulsorily and only states that in the interest of the Corporation, the petitioner is retired compulsorily and therefore, the order is bad in law being passed without assigning any reason. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner after his initial engagement with the respondent-RSRTC in the year 1977, stand visited with various charge-sheets and as many as on 14 occasions, charge-sheets were served and disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner. The various penalties were imposed upon the petitioner vide Annexure-R/1. Subsequently, by order dated 4th October, 1985 , the services of the petitioner came to be terminated. However, the petitioner approached Additional Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur by filing a civil suit for declaration challenging his termination and by judgment and order dated 30th May, 1988, the petitioner was directed to reinstate in service. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner came to be considered for the compulsorily retirement keeping in view that the reinstatement of the petitioner was not in the interest of the RSRTC. On various occasions, the petitioner 3 has lost his confidence of the respondent-Corporation and the Standing Order of 1965 clearly provides that where a employee loses its confidence of the corporation then in accordance with this provision, he can be compulsorily retired from the service. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on a Division Bench's decision of this Court in Ved Prakash Doda Vs. RSRTC & Ors., D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.142/2007, decided on 1st March, 2007. The Division Bench of this Court held that adequacy of the material is not the subject matter of the judicial review while examining the case of the subjective satisfaction of the employer about the utility of continuing the incumbent in the employment after he has reached the particular stage at which the employer can review the service record of the employee. If there is some material which has nexus with his satisfaction about whether the incumbent has outlived his utility to be continued in service at that stage and he has used his discretion or invoked the doctrine of pleasure, in terminating the employer-employee relationship before reaching the age of superannuation by providing him all retiral benefits no interference can be made. In such event, he can bring the contract of employment to an end. The compulsory retirement in that manner is not considered to be punitive in nature. Keeping in view the aforementioned Division Bench's 4 decision of this Court and the facts as is evident from the reply which have not been controverted that petitioner has lost the confidence of the employer RSRTC, in my view, the respondents were justified in compulsorily retiring the petitioner. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. NK