Sangeet Raj Lodha, J. - (1.) THE matter comes up on second stay petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner, however, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage. This writ petition is directed against order dt. 14.2.2011 passed by the Inspector General of Police (I.G.), Bikaner Range, Bikaner, whereby the representation made by the petitioner against the adverse entry recorded in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report ('APAR) of the year 2006 -07 stands rejected. The petitioner has also questioned validity of order dt. 23.6.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, the respondent No. 3 herein, whereby the order dt. 30.8.2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of withholding of two annual grade increments without commutative effect stands modified and the penalty imposed has been reduced from withholding two annual increments to the penalty of withholding one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. In the alternative, the petitioner has sought direction to the respondent No. 1 to decide the review petition preferred, by him seeking review of order dt. 23.6.2008 ibid. That apart, the petitioner is seeking directions for consideration of his candidature for promotion to the post, Deputy Superintendent of Police ignoring the adverse entry recorded in his APAR of the year 2006 -07.
(2.) THE relevant facts in nutshell are that the petitioner entered the services of the respondent on being appointed on the post of Sub Inspector on being selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. It is submitted that till the year 2006, the petitioner's entire service record was unblemished and, he was never issued any charge sheet. In the year 2006, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the CCA Rules') with allegation that on 12.8.2006, the petitioner failed to reach on the place of incident and thus could not pick the foot prints of the accused. The charge against the petitioner was found proved and, therefore, a penalty of censure was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dt. 26.12.2006. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order, was allowed by the Appellate Authority and accordingly, the penalty imposed was set aside.
(3.) THE petitioner was served with yet another charge sheet dt. 10.11.2006 with the allegation that in the police station where the petitioner was posted there is pendency of 17.4% cases and thus, the petitioner is guilty for supervisory negligence. The said disciplinary proceedings also culminated in imposition of punishment of censure by the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dt. 31.8.2007, however, the penalty was set aside by the Appellate Authority vide order dt. 18.1.2008.;