- (1.) Aggrieved of the orders dated 26th September, 2012 (Annexure-2) and 15th October, 2013 (Annexure-11), the petitioner has instituted the writ proceedings, praying for the following relief(s): i) expunge the remarks recorded in the APA Report for the year 2011-12 and further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.9.12 (Annex.2) and 15.10.2013 (Annex.11) and the respondents be directed to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner. ii) any prejudicial order to the interest of the petitioner, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and be quashed and set aside; iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, deemed just and proper in the interest of justice may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and he be awarded exmplary costs of the writ petition. iv) Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) Briefly, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the petitioner entered the service with the respondent-State as 'Forester' on 22nd December, 1986. While, he was posted at Range Patan, District Sikar in the year 2001, the respondent No. 5-Deputy Conservator of Forest (Mr. Mani Ram Poonia), on account of personal bias and malafide, withheld the salary of the petitioner for the month of April, 2001. A charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'), was also served on the petitioner. The petitioner addressed a detailed representation to the Director cum Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jodhpur, detailing out the facts and the personal bias of respondent No.5. Having received no response to the representation, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. As a consequence, the respondents were directed by the Tribunal to pay the due salary of the petitioner. The respondent No.5, while acting as an Accepting Officer, with reference to Annual Confidential Reports of year 2011-12, made an adverse remark including that of 'doubtful integrity', though the Reporting and the Reviewing Officer assessed and reported the petitioner as "VERY GOOD". The representation addressed to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Sikar, for deletion of the adverse entries in the ACRs of the year 2011-12; was declined and the entries were maintained.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Dhand, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that the adverse entries made by respondent No.5, are on account of malafide and personal bias which is apparent on the face of record. According to the learned counsel, respondent No.5 who has been impleaded as party eo-nominee to the writ proceedings was jealous and with oblique motives in order to spoil the service record and career of the petitioner acted maliciously against the petitioner while making the adverse entry with reference to an incident which was enquired into and on an enquiry a negative finding was arrived at for any kind of involvement of the petitioner as would be evident from enquiry report dated 11th June, 2012, wherein the allegations against the petitioner were found baseless and only on the basis of apprehension.;