1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7560/2008. LRs OF SATPAL AND OTHERS VS. RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS. DATE OF ORDER : 17.10.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. H.R. Arora for the petitioner. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the order dated 18.09.2007 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur rejecting an appeal preferred by late Shri Satpal challenging the order dated 29.11.2000 passed by the competent authority as per the provisions of Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1996. Late Shri Satpal Singh was compulsorily retired from service after examination of his service record and by reaching at a specific conclusion that his retention in service shall not be in public interest. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the compulsory retirement is stigmatic and, therefore, that could not have been imposed without providing reasonable opportunity for defence. It is also contended that the selection grade was granted to late Shri Satpal Singh by the 2 respondents, therefore, whatever penalties are taken into consideration stands wiped out and those should have not been taken into consideration while considering case for compulsory retirement. A reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon a judgment of this Court in Kadir Ahmad vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 2003(3) WLN -225. In the instant matter, learned Tribunal considered the entire material available on record and found that the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1976, 1982, 1990 and 1992 were adverse and beside that the employee suffered with number of penalties for remaining absent from duties, for remaining negligent on duties and for remaining under intoxication while discharging the duties. In the case of Kabir Ahmad (supra), this Court after scrutinizing the material available on record held that the adverse entries, those were taken into consideration to place the incumbent under compulsory retirement, were not adequate to form an opinion that the employee concern lost his efficiency and had become a dead wood. The grant of selection grade is certainly a factor that requires consideration at the time of assessing a case for compulsory retirement, but that cannot be a sole criteria to wipe out all other events of service career. The prime consideration is that whether retention of the government servant is in public 3 interest or not. On examination of entire service record, learned Tribunal reached at the conclusion that the competent authority rightly reached at the conclusion that the retention of the employee concern was not in public interest. I do not find any error in the finding given by the Tribunal. The argument that the compulsory retirement casts stigma is absolutely mis-conceived. The petitioner was compulsorily retired while exercising powers under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 and that is nothing but a termination simplycitor. It is also pertinent to note that late Shri Satpal Singh was compulsorily retired after serving the respondents for a period of about 36 years and as such as a consequent to his compulsory retirement, he was getting full pension. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/