1 15 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL [WRIT] NO.880/2006. [RSRTC, JAIPUR VS. PREM CHAND CHOUHAN] DATED : 25.01.2007 HON'BLE MR. RAJESH BALIA, J. HON'BLE MR. CHATRA RAM JAT, J. Mr.P.K.Lohra for appellant. Mr.M.R.Singhvi for the caveator. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.07.2006. The respondent petitioner had been compulsorily retired from the services of the appellant Corporation on 16.10.2001 after the incumbent had served for more than 27 years. Learned Single Judge had set aside the order dated 16.10.2001 vide judgment under appeal. The appellant's have taken the stand that having considered the entire service record the Competent Authority had reached to its subjective satisfaction that the incumbent has been rendered dead wood and he has outlived his utility as a member of service of the Corporation. The learned Single Judge, before whom the entire material which has gone into consideration, was placed on record, found 2 that apart from minor penalties inflicted between 1975 to 1978 during the initial period of service which included warning to be careful in future, forfeiture of remuneration during period of suspension and withholding one or two grade increments, but since April 1978 he had totally unblemished service record and has been twice promoted in due course on his turn. Considering the nature of punishments imposed in the remote past and unblemished consistent good service record since then for more than 20 years, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that in the circumstances the subjective satisfaction reached by the Competent Authority about the incumbent outliving his utility and the incumbent having become dead wood could not have been reached by any person of ordinary prudence so as to shorten the tenure of the incumbent. Consequently the order of compulsory retirement was set aside. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case that since 10.06.1978 the respondent petitioner had served unblemishedly with integrity and honesty and has earned his due promotions may be on the basis of the seniority and not on merit, the sustained improvement shown since 1978 is too far remote minor punishment in the initial period of service could not 3 furnish any basis for the satisfaction, howsoever, subjective it may be that the incumbent has become a deadwood or has outlived his utility in the service. The conclusion reached by learned Single Judge in our opinion is not contrary to law. The law is well settled that merely because the satisfaction required is subjective one, it does not go beyond the pale of judicial review on well settled grounds. One such principle is that the satisfaction reached by the Competent Authority must have nexus to, the purpose for which such satisfaction is required to be reached in the light of existing material. The purpose of enabling power in the Competent Authority to retire an employee before the age of superannuation is reached is to chop of deadwood and get rid of those employees who had outlived their utility. If too remote record of the employee takes precedence to outweigh the consistent good record of improvement shown for more than 20 years, it defeats the very object of giving an employee a chance in service and grow to improve and grow. Those who have faulted in the past and have been given chance to improve and have availed that opportunity to improve about which there cannot be any doubt in the absence of their being 4 any tentacle of recurrence of the past malaise, ordinarily in such circumstances remote past record cannot be allowed to outweigh the consistent good record over 20 years immediately before the decision is taken. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find it a case to interfere in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. [CHATRA RAM JAT]J. [RAJESH BALIA], J. mamta