Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -State in the instant writ application has challenged a legality and validity of the order dated 20th January, 2009, passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short), and has prayed for the following relief(s): - - "i) The impugned order dated 20th January, 2009 (Annex. 2) passed by the learned Tribunal in Appeal No. 764/2007, titled as Ashok Kumar Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., be quashed and set aside; and ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly passed such other order or a direction which it may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in favour of the petitioners. iii) The costs also be awarded in favour of the petitioners."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the respondent -employee was inflicted with a penalty of censure in the year 1991. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) while considering the case of the respondent -employee, for promotion against the vacancies of year, 1996 -1997, did not find him suitable and eligible for promotion owing to the penalty of censure. However, the respondent -employee was accorded promotion against the vacancies of year 1997 -1998 in view of an order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 1455/1997. On an another appeal filed by the respondent -employee being appeal No. 964/2007, decided vide order dated 20th January, 2009, impugned herein. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal holding that the respondent -employee was already deprived of promotion on account of penalty of censure, suffered by him, as against the vacancies of the year 1996 -1997, and therefore, for the same penalty i.e. 'censure', he could be deprived of grant of selection scale after completion of 18/27 years of service, in view of the order dated 25th January, 1992, for such and action would amount to double jeopardy. Learned counsel for the State -petitioners reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, while assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 20th January, 2009, asserted that the case of the petitioner was considered by the DPC convened for consideration of the of the cases for promotion against the vacancies of the year 1996 -1997, and did not find the respondent -employee suitable and eligible for promotion on an assessment of the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) and owing to the infliction of the penalties which also included the penalty of 'censure' inflicted vide order dated 19th June, 1991. According to the learned counsel, the other penalties inflicted of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 31st January, 1991 and 16th May, 1992, which were successfully challenged by the respondent -employee before the Court of Additional District Judge, have been subjected to further challenge and proceedings are said to be pending.
(3.) FURTHER more, the issue is no more res integra in view of the reference answered by the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Suraj Mal Soni v. State of Rajasthan;, 1992 (2) WLC (Raj.) 1, observing thus: - - "While considering the case for promotion the minor penalty of stoppage of annual grade increments, or for that matter any other minor penalty, shall be considered by the DPC and if as a result of consideration as aforesaid a government servant is not found fit for promotion it cannot be said that a penalty has been imposed and the doctrine of double jeopardy will not be attracted.";