B.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) BOTH these petitions have been filed in respect of the judgment and order dated 13.3.1990 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, by which the order dated 9.4.1985, passed by the District Collector, Chittorgarh, giving compulsory retirement to petitioner - employee Banshi Lal Nayati has been quashed. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2565/1991 has been filed by petitioner -employee for seeking direction to implement the said judgment and order, while S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3877/1991 has been filed by the State for setting aside the said judgment.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that petitioner Banshi Lal Nayati entered in the service of the respondents as Patwari on 2.7.1951. He had been given compulsory retirement vide impugned order dated 9.4.1985 (Annexure. 1) in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the Rules'). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, he prepared an appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 13.3.1990 mainly on the following grounds - (i) petitioner had earlier been given some adverse entries, on the basis of which he was given compulsory retirement earlier. However, the said order was quashed and petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 4.5.1977; (ii) any adverse entry prior to the date of reinstatement i.e. 4.5.1977, being a report of remote -past, cannot be taken into consideration while considering the case under Rule 244(2) of the Rules, and reinstatement had wiped -out the effect of such an adverse entry; (iii) after reinstatement in 1977, the Service Record of the petitioner was average or satisfactory except one entry of 1978 - 79, wherein his performance was assessed as 'average' but in over -all assessment, the remark had been given to the effect that the employee was unreliable, irresponsible and was a habitual liar. As no specific incident had been mentioned by the Reporting Officer in support of the said adverse entry, the same could not have been taken into account being vague; (iv) the Minutes of the Screening Committee revealed that he was not found fit for promotion on several occasions, i.e. in the years 1978 -79, 1979 -80 and 1980 -81 and it could not have been a ground of compulsory retirement; and (v) the adverse entry did not appear to have been communicated to the petitioner and in such circumstance, the same could not have been taken into account while passing the impugned order dated 9.4.1985. Being aggrieved of the order dated 13.3.1990 passed by the tribunal, the State has preferred the aforesaid writ petition for setting aside the same and the petitioner -employee has filed the aforesaid writ petition for enforcement of the said judgment.
(3.) HEARD Mr. Sajjan Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner -employee and Mr. R.K. Soni and Mr. M.R. Singhvi, for the respondents.;