- (1.) The Officer has filed two separate writ petitions. Initially, Officer has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement u/R.53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (in short 'the Rules of 1996') dt.31.03.2010 and later on filed D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6916/2012 questioning the adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 2002 and both the writ petitions have been heard together with the consent of parties.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner Shri Gavendra Singh Chauhan inducted in the Rajasthan Judicial Service in January, 1992 after being selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. He was granted senior scale in the RJS Cadre w.e.f. 04.04.1998 vide order dt.06.08.2001 and was promoted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dt.11.07.2000 and was granted selection grade in RJS Cadre w.e.f. 30.04.2002 vide order dt.03.01.2003 and was promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) on officiating basis vide order dt.10.08.2007 w.e.f. 06.01.2005 and while working as ADJ (Fast Track), Tijara, District Alwar was compulsorily retired vide order dt.31.03.2010.
(3.) While the Officer was working as ADJ (Fast Track), Tijara, District Alwar, Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dt.30.11.2009 constituted a Committee of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court to scrutinize the cases of such of the Judicial Officers of the State of Rajasthan who have become deadwood or lost utility to continue in service for compulsory retirement obviously who qualified pre- conditions envisage u/R.53(1) of the Rules, 1996. After constitution, one of the Hon'ble Judge stood retired, Hon'ble the Chief Justice reconstituted the Committee of four Hon'ble Judges and the Committee in its meeting held on 02.03.2010 considered the cases of Judicial Officers including the petitioner and after examining the overall record of service including personal and other files of Officers, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner became liability to the Judicial Service and public interest warrants compulsory retirement of the Officer and accordingly recommended for his compulsory retirement which was placed before the Full Court and after due deliberation and discussions and perusing the overall service record & ACRs, it was unanimously resolved by the Full Court in its meeting dt.20.03.2010 to accept the report of the Committee & recommended petitioner's compulsory retirement and in consequence thereof vide order dt.31.03.2010, the petitioner was compulsorily retired u/R.53(1) of the Rules, 1996. Apart from assailing the order of compulsory retirement on merits, the petitioner has also questioned the validity of R.53(1) of the Rules, 1996.;