MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 20.5.2005 (Annexure-1), 18.11.2004 (Annexure-3) and 24.3.2005 (Annexure-5).
(2.) Petitioner was selected in Rajasthan Police Service in the year 1991 and joined his services in 1994. At the time when the writ petition was filed, he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tonk. When the petitioner was posted as Dy. Superintendent of Police (C.O.), Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara from 16.7.2003 to 25.2.2004, certain complaints against him were made with regard to investigation in FIR No.270/2003 registered with Police Station Mandalgarh against the then SHO Police Station, Mandalgarh-Shri Narsi Lal Meena. He was issued charge sheet under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Subsequently, a joint enquiry under Rule 16 and 18 was proposed against the petitioner and Shri Narsi Lal Meena and ultimately Narsi Lal Meena and petitioner were served with charge-sheet. The charges against the petitioner were of supervisory negligence and the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 20.5.2005 held the petitioner guilty of supervisory negligence and imposed a penalty of stoppage of annual grade increment for one year without cumulative effect.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the aforesaid order of penalty was challenged by the petitioner in appeal as has been admitted by the respondents in their reply. The appellate authority by order dated 8.2.2007 quashed the order of penalty. However, the effect of aforesaid order of penalty and disciplinary proceeding was reflected in his ACR Part-III and IV of the year 2003-04 conveyed to him by the competent authority. Reference therein has been made initially to proceedings in connection with FIR No.270/03, P.S. Mandalgarh under the NDPS Act and accordingly the overall assessment has been indicated as unsatisfactory. Petitioner submitted a representation to the Government, which has been partly accepted in so far as entry with regard to proposed disciplinary enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules in connection with FIR No.270/2003, Police Station Mandalgarh under NDPS Act indicated in the APAR was concerned and the adverse entry was removed to that extent, but the overall assessment-unsatisfactory was not improved. Learned counsel submitted that the only reason why his overall assessment was rated as unsatisfactory was the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner. The respondents have not pointed out any other reason or adversity. Petitioner was not issued any advisory or memo except aforesaid disciplinary proceeding during the aforesaid relevant period. Learned counsel has submitted that this Court in Hetram Dudi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.-1992 (3) WLC (Raj) 726 while dealing with the issue as to whether punishment imposed on an employee can be the sole basis for declaring same or treating him unsuitable or unfit for promotion has held that the competent authority is bound to objectively consider the entire service record. It is argued that Part-III in which the aforesaid adverse entry was recorded is filled in by the Reviewing Authority. While the Reporting Authority has not indicated any adversity against the petitioner and to his understanding has rated his performance as good and very good, but the Reviewing Authority in Part-III has on the basis of the disciplinary enquiry rated his performance as unsatisfactory. Petitioner should have been apprised of the reasons for doing so. The down rating of APRS in this manner is contrary as per the ratio of judgement of the Supreme Court in UP Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors.-AIR 1996 SC 1661 and State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shankar Mishra and Anr.- (1997) 4 SCC 7 .;