Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) RAVINDRA Nath Dubey, petitioner herein, filed the present writ petition nine years ago challenging the order dt. 18.04.2002 passed by respondents by which he was compulsorily retired from service and the order dt. 18.06.2004 by which the appeal filed by him against the said order was dismissed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Service Tribunal'). The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk 4 (for short, 'LDC') by the District Collector, Chittorgarh vide order dt. 07.06.1975. He was later on transferred to the Government College, Chittorgarh and appointed there as Laboratory Assistant vide order dt. 03.01.1976. He was transferred to the Government College, Nathdwara. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur. This Court vide order dt. 09.09.1994 stayed operation of the transfer order. The respondents did not comply with the aforesaid stay order passed by this Court. The petitioner filed a contempt petition in which notices were issued to the respondents whereafter he was allowed to join back in the Government College, Chittorgarh. The contempt petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. It was thereafter that a charge -sheet was served upon the petitioner on 05.06.1995. One of the charges against the petitioner was that he by not taking the charge in the chemistry department of the college on the pretext of the pendency of the litigation before this Court at Jodhpur, failed to faithfully discharge his duties and thereby caused loss to the State exchequer of the emoluments paid to him for such period. There was another charge about filing of an affidavit by him before the Court of Munsiff at Chittorgarh in which according to the respondent the petitioner gave a false affidavit on 14.02.1994 with regard to his appointment. Enquiry officer on 21.08.1995 found seven charges proved against the petitioner including above referred to charges. Disciplinary authority, vide order dt. 21.08.1995, awarded penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of pay scale. Petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of penalty. The appellate authority partly allowed his appeal vide order dt. 31.03.2000 and substituted the penalty of reduction of his pay to the minimum of the pay scale by that of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect. It was thereafter that case of the petitioner for grant of second selection scale became ripe. Since the next higher post was not available in the department for promotion of the petitioner, he was granted second selection scale on completion of 18 years of satisfactory service by order of the respondent dt. 11.04.20(sic) The respondents then invoking the Rule 53 of the RSR, compulsorily retired the petitioner by order dt. 18.04.2002. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Service Tribunal by order dt. 18.06.2004. Both these orders are impugned in the present proceedings. When hearing of this writ petition was getting delayed, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court against the order dt. 06.05.2011 passed in the writ petition. The Supreme Court by order dt. 19.11.2012 requested this Court to deal with the matter expeditiously and may not give any adjournment.
(2.) WE have heard Shri Anupam Agarwal and Shri Neeraj Batra for petitioner as well as Shri Anant Bhandari, Deputy Government Counsel, for respondents State and also perused the material on record. Shri Anupam Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the impugned order has been passed by the respondents for the reasons of mala -fide and in colourable exercise of powers. It is not only a mala -fide order but also arbitrary and discriminatory and is revengeful order to teach a lesson to the petitioner for filing a contempt petition against the respondents. It is contended that the selection scale as per the Circular of the Government dt. 25.01.1992 is granted only on satisfactory completion of 18 years of service in lieu of promotion. Therefore it is as good as promotion based on consideration of the entire service record of the Government servant concerned. Since the second selection scale has been granted to the petitioner on completion of 18 years of service, it should be deemed that his service record was satisfactory and there was no adversity atleast of the nature that would make him a liability to service. Learned counsel referred to the order of compulsory retirement dt. 18.04.2002 and argued that this order suffers from malice in law and fact both. This order also suffers from non -application of mind and vice and arbitrariness. Apart from the order of penalty of withholding of grant of selection scale, another reason for compulsorily retiring the petitioner given in this order is that there are several adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner, whereas there are none. In none of the years of his career, the petitioner was conveyed any adverse entries. In fact, not in respect of single year is there any adverse remark recorded in his A.C.Rs. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have failed to produce any such record before the Service Tribunal regarding adverse remarks. The A.C.R. dossier of the petitioner was never produced before the Tribunal despite specific plea to the contrary by the petitioner in the appeal. The Tribunal has mechanically dismissed the appeal. The order of compulsory retirement has been passed only because of the litigation initiated by the petitioner against the respondent at a time when he had already crossed the fifty years of age and was unable to find any job elsewhere.
(3.) THE petitioner made an application to the Public Information Officer i.e. the Joint Director (Academic) in the Directorate of the College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur with the specific query whether there exists any adverse in the A.C.Rs. of the petitioner for the period from 20.01.1976 to 18.04.2002. In response to which, he has been conveyed that there is no adverse entry in his A.C.Rs. during the aforesaid period. It has been further conveyed that because there was no adverse entry in the A.C.Rs. of the petitioner, he was granted first and second selection scale respectively on completion of 9 and 18 years of service. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the review committee has not considered the entire record of the petitioner or the complete information has been withheld from the review committee. The order of the compulsory retirement has been mechanical passed without application of mind and in the facts of the case, only for the reasons of malafide of the respondents, who wanted to get rid of him. Learned counsel submitted that despite being required by this Court by order dt. 17.04.2013, the respondents have failed to produce the original service record of the petitioner so as to show adverse remarks recorded in any of his A.C.Rs.;