DEVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ application projects a simultaneous challenge to the order dated 11th May, 2000 whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired, and the order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short), upholding the action of the State -respondents in compulsorily retiring the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised in the writ application needs to be first noticed. The petitioner was initially appointed on 23rd May, 1997 as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and was accorded promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) vide order dated 14th September, 1999, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee against the vacancies of the year 1996 -97. However, the promotion was foregone by the petitioner for attendant domestic circumstances at the relevant time. The promotion was preceded by a joint departmental action against the petitioner, one Laxman Singh and one Bhanwar Singh, culminating into imposition of penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 16th September, 1995, which was unsuccessfully subjected to departmental appeal, that was dismissed on 19th March, 2000. The co -delinquent, Laxman Singh, was inflicted with the major penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect while proceedings against Bhanwar Singh were dropped.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Samdaria, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application strenuously argued that impugned order dated 11th May, 2000, order of compulsory retirement, not only suffered with gross discrimination but also suffered with gross non -application of mind. Neither any adverse entry was recorded against the petitioner nor was communicated to him at any point of time. Moreover, the effect of minor penalty inflicted in the year 1995, stood obliterated/wiped off in the face of promotion accorded to the petitioner in the year 1999, against the vacancy of the year 1996 -97, on the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Thus, in the facts and circumstances obtaining, the petitioner could not have become a dead wood warranting compulsory retirement.