S.K.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) BY this Special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, the State of Rajasthan has questioned the correctness of the orderdated August 12, 1980, passed by a learned Single Judge of this court, by which he dismissed its petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order (Ex.6) dated May 9, 1979 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Jaipur (for short the Tribunal), by which it quashed the order of compulsory retirement of respondent No. 1.
(2.) BRIEFLY put the facts leading to this appeal are these : Respondent No. 1, who was the appellant before the Tribunal was initially appointed as Muafi Enquiry Officer on September 18, 1948 in the Settlement Department of the erstwhile Jodhpur State. He was appointed as Naib -Tehsildar in the year 1954. He was promoted to the Rajasthan Administrative Service in the year 1971. Respondent No. 1, continued on this post until the order (Ex -1) dated October 22, 1975 was passed compulsorily retiring him under Rules 244(2) of the riasthan Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Respondent No, 1 was promoted asTehsildar in the jear 1960. During his tenure as Tehsildar and until he was promoted on ad hoc basis in the cadre of Rajasthan Administrative Service, there were certain enquiries against him* The details of the enquiries and punishments are as follows: S.No. Date of Period of Nature of Quantum of Punishment Punishment Charges Punishment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 16.11 73 67 -68 Irregularities Stoppage of two in purchase grade increments and other with cumulative financial effect matters 2. 16/17.12.73 61 -52 Over -payment Stoppage of one for construc - grade increment tion of without cumula - Patwargarh tive effect 3. 5.2.74 about over payment Recorded warning 67 -68 to the contractor for Patwar Khana 4. 4.2.75 prior to Irregularity Stoppage of two 1971 in regulari - grade increment sing the land without cumula - in khatedari tive effect in Destt. Sirohi It will be clear from the above statement that respondent No. 1 was promoted to the Rajastban Administrative Service in the year 19)1 on ad hoc basis after due screening by the committee, which consisted of the Chairman of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, the Revenue Secretary and the Special Secretary, Appointments before the punishments were imposed. The enquiries were pending at the time of the promotion. The enquiries were concluded after the ad hoc promotion and after it, punishment as stated above, were awarded. After passing of the compulsory -retirement order, a Review committee was constituted and the review was rejected on June 19, 1976. Thereafter, by order dated September 28, 1977, a committee was again constituted and subsequent review was rejected by the Committee vide order dated July 26, 1978. This order was served on respondent No. 1 on August 2, 1978. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was filed against the order No. P. 2 (49) Karmik/ka -IV dated October 22, 1975, (order of compulsory retirement) read with the order No. s -1/57 Karmik/Stha/77 dated July 26, 1978. The Tribunal consisted of Sarva Shri Rules Section Kumbhat, Chairman, Rules R.L. Gupta, Member and Rules N. Srivastva, Member. Shri Rules L. Gupta, was of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. Shri R.N. Shrivastava was of the opinion that the compulsory retirement order being contrary to the condition of the Note appended to for 244 of the Rules, deserves to be set aside. The Chairman Shri R.S. Kumbhat agreed with the opinion of Shri R.N. Srivastava, but for different reasons. He was of the view that the order compulsorily retiring respondent No. 1 should be set aside and the appeal should be accepted. In view of the opinion of the majority, the Tribunal by its order (Ex.6) dated May 9, 1979 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of compulsory retirement passed against respondent No. 1. The State of Rajasthan filed a writ petition on February 28, 1980 impleading respondent No. 1 and the Tribunal as parties (non -petitioners) to it. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated August 12, 1980 dismissed the writ petition without any order as to costs.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the State of Rajasthan has come up in appeal.;