Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 2.6.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 19.6.2000 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 1 Principal Chief Conversator of Forests, Rajasthan, Jaipur by which under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996"), the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service in public interest with effect from the date of receipt of that order, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC on 27.7.1965 and thereafter, he was selected for the post of Forester with effect from 26.5.1971. Thereafter, on 9.1.1987, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger by the order of Chief Conservator of Forests. However, later -on, the post of Deputy Ranger was re -designated as Ranger Gr. II with effect from 1.4.1998 and, therefore, the petitioner came to be designated as Ranger Gr. II and he was working as such since then. The case of the petitioner is that he has discharged his duties since initial appointment to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities and he had carried out the work sincerely. However, in the year 1975, a joint enquiry was held against the petitioner and he was given censure in the said enquiry and except that there was no such adverse remarks ever recorded in his service record nor any such adverse remarks were communicated to him. The further case of the petitioner is that between the period running from 1.4.1988 to 19.6.2000, only in the ACRs of two years i.e. 1993 -94 and 1996 -97, adverse remarks were made and the same were communicated to him. According to the petitioner, the adverse remarks made in his ACR for the year 1993 -94 were communicated to him in the year 1995 and against the said adverse remarks, he made a detailed representation, but the same has not been decided so far and, therefore, even these adverse remarks could not be taken into consideration for passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that the adverse remarks made in his ACR for the year 1996 -97 that he remained absent from office for one day were also communicated to him and against the said adverse remarks, he also filed a representation and according to the petitioner, such advese remarks cannot be said to be sufficient for passing an order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. Thus, it was submitted by the petitioner that there was no adverse material for passing an order of compulsory retirement against him. The further case of the petitioner is that Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 was amended on 1.12.1999 and in the amended Rule 53(1), the scope of zone of consideration for making compulsory retirement was extended and sicne the petitioner was compulsorily retired only on account of public interest and other aspects were not considered, therefore, from this point of view also, the impugned order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained. Apart from this, according to the petitioner, the impugned order Annex. 3 dated 19.6.2000 was passed in violation of the directives given in the Circular dated 21.4.2000 (Annex. 1). Hence, this writ petition with the prayer as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and one of the preliminary objections taken by the respondents was that the impugned order Annex. 3 was passed on 19.6.2000 and the same has been challenged by filing this writ petition on 2.6.2001 and therefore, there was delay, which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner and thus, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. Apart from this, it was further submitted by the respondents that the petitioner had been compulsorily retired from service after consideration of his entire service record under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996. The Internal Screening Committee as well as the Review Committee have considered the entries made in the ACRs/APARs of the petitioner both favourable and adverse and after taking into consideration the entire service record of the petitioner, the Review Committee did not find the petitioner fit to be retained in service and thus, recommended his compulsory retirement and accordingly, on the recommendations of the Review Committee, the Appointing Authority passed the impugned order Annex. 3. Thus, the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 19.6.2000 (Annex. 3) is perfectly legal and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was further submitted by the respondents that the impugned order Annex. 3 was passed in view of the procedure prescribed by the Circular Annex. 1 dated 21.4.2000 and not in violation of that Circular. It was further submitted by the respondents that in the year 1975, a joint enquiry was held against the petitioner and he came to be suspended vide order dated 24.5.1975 after receiving the report of preliminary enquiry, as disciplinary proceedings against him were contemplated in that matter and that suspension order was revoked on 19.11.1977 and the was reinstated. However, in that enquiry he was punished with the punishment of censure by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 6.9.1982. This aspect has been admitted by the petitioner himself in para 5 of the writ petition. It was further submitted by the respondents that adverse entries were made in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 1993 -94, a copy of which is marked as Annex. R/1, and the same were communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 4.1.1995 (Annex. R/2). In para No. 10 of that ACR for the year 1993 -94 (Anenx. R/1), the integrity of the petitioner was held to be doubtful on the basis of act committed by the petitioner and in para No. 12 of that ACR, it was also stated that the petitioner was habitual of remaining absent from duty without sanction.
(3.) IT was further submitted by the respondents that in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 1996 -97 (Annex. R/3), the Reporting Officer found the work of the petitioner as satisfactory, but the Reviewing Officer made an adverse entry in para No. 10 of that ACR that the petitioner was in habit of remaining absent from headquarter and he also made remarks in para No. 2 of Part -III of that ACR that he did not agree with the Reporting Officer and the petitioner may be rated as below average worker. The said adverse entries were communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.10.1997 (Annex. R/4) and against the said adverse entries, the petitioner made a representation and the same was decided vide order dated 21.2.1998 (Annex. R/5) by which the adverse entry regarding habitual of remaining absent from headquarter was kept in tact, but the remarks that the petitioner may be rated as below average worker were expunged. Thus, the adverse remarks made in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 1996 -97 regarding habitual of remaining absent from headquarter remained intact. Furthermore, in view of para 4(a) of the Circular dated 21.4.2000 (Annex. 1), even non -communication of an adverse entry in regard to the doubtful integrity might be taken into consideration by the Screening Committee. Hence, it was prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.;