JAS RAJ CHOPRA,J. - (1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the Order Annexute -2 dated 21 -12 -1985 where by he was compulsorily retired from service.
(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are: that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Directorate of Transport on 22 -7 -1985. He was, how ever, given appointment by promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles Sub -Inspector on the recommendation of the D.P.C. vide Order Annexure -1 dated 15 -11 -1984. Almost 13 months after his promotion, he has been compulsorily retired from Service under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules' here in after). The case of the petitioner is that no adverse entries have been communicated to him for the past about five years. One adverse entry was communicated to him about five years back but on an appeal, that entry was was expugned. He has further submitted that no enquiry what so ever has ever been held against him and nothing has come on record which may construe as adverse, to the petitioner's service after his promotion. The petitioner preferred a review petition, which was treated as an appeal and that appeal too has been dismissed. This fact has been stated by the petitioner in the amended writ petition because the respondents raised objection that his appeal has also been dismissed and that fact has been suppressed by him in they writ petition. The petitioner has submitted, that he preferred a review petition which was treated as an appeal and its result has never been communicated to him. He has come to know about its result only after filing of the reply by the respondents. According to the petitioner, the Order Ann -2 dated 21 -12 -1985 is arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner has submitted that it has been stated in the order Annexure -2 that it has been made in the public interest but his retirement is not in the public interest. The order has been made without fulfilment of the conditions Lald down under Rule 244(2) of the Rules. According to the petitioner, except one A.C.R. which was adverse to him and was communicated to him and which has been expugned, he has never been punished. On the contrary, only a year back, he was accorded promotion and thus, the punishment was penal in character and that too without holding any enquiry and there being no sufficient and good reasons and thus, the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be quashed.
(3.) A return has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the return, a preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order Annexure -2 dated 21 -12 -1985 and that appeal has been rejected by the appellate committee after considering the entire record of the case but the petitioner has suppressed this fact and therefore he is guilty of suppressing the material fact. According to the respondents, this writ petition was filed on 27 -12 -1985 where as the adequate, afficacious and alernative remedy was availed of by the petitioner even with in the prescribed period of limitation. It was submitted that the petitioner has also suppressed certain other material facts relating to the adverse entries already recorded all in his service record. Actually, the petitioner has been punished five times and a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 17 of the Rules was still pending against him at the time of his compulsory retirement. It was further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the order dated 17 -2 -1988 passed by the Appellate Authority and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.;