M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order of compulsory retirement dt. 09.11.2000. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from mala fide of the respondent No. 3, who was having bias against the petitioner thus malicious order deserves to be set aside.
(2.) REFERRING to the facts of this case, it is submitted that adverse entries for several years were conveyed to the petitioner by one stroke in the hands of respondent No.3. Those adverse entries were of the period when petitioner was serving under respondent No.3. The petitioner was even served with charge sheets though in one case, he was exonerated and in another case, punishment was reduced. In the aforesaid manner, whole service career of the petitioner was spoiled by none else but respondent No.3. He was having grudge against the petitioner as wishes were not fulfilled. The respondent No. 3 remained posted as Registrar (Vigilance), Rajasthan High Court apart from Registrar General thus having means to harass petitioner. It is out of ill -will of the respondent No. 3 that petitioner had been retired compulsorily from service, otherwise, he was an excellent judicial officer thus prayer is to set aside the impugned order of compulsory retirement. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that the allegations made against respondent No. 3 are without any basis. Referring to the schedule appended to the reply, our attention is drawn towards the material considered by the High Court before compulsory retirement of petitioner. The petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks by different officers when petitioner was not working under respondent No.3. The allegations have been made against respondent No. 3 only to over come from petitioner's own defaults. Referring to the nature of adverse remarks, it is submitted that consistently adverse remarks are of similar nature and were given by different officers under whom petitioner worked, hence, allegations of bias against respondent No. 3 is without any basis. Petitioner was even punished from time to time for different misconduct hence challenge to the order of compulsory retirement is not based on legal grounds. Petitioner was even superseded in promotion, the details of which have also been given in the schedule attached to the reply. Learned counsel for respondents justified order of compulsory retirement.
(3.) WE have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.;