BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By judgment impugned dated 14.1.2015, learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ preferred by the appellant petitioner questioning correctness of the judgment dated 25.10.2001 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. Learned Tribunal by judgment aforesaid affirmed the order dated 9.8.2000 retiring the appellant petitioner compulsorily.

(2.) In brief, factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the appellant entered in services of State of Rajasthan on 21.12.1973 being appointed as Patwari. By an order dated 9.8.2000 the Collector, Sriganganagar, while exercising powers under sub-rule(1) of Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'), compulsorily retired him and being aggrieved by the same he preferred an appeal before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal with allegation that his compulsorily retirement from service is not well founded being lacking adequate material and also appropriate consideration of service record. The decision taken do not serve public interest.

(3.) In reply, it was stated that a screening committee consisting of Sub Divisional Officer, Sriganganagar and Accounts Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Sriganganagar screened service record of the petitioner and 33 other Patwaris and that arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was showing indifference in recovering loan, therefore, he has lost his utility in public service. The appellant was also subjected to disciplinary action that resulted into imposing penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments under an order dated 8.10.1986 and stoppage of three annual grade increments under order dated 30.5.1997. His Annual Performance Appraisal Reports for the years 1979-80, 1980- 81 and 1981-82 were adverse because of his indifference in effecting recovery of government revenue. The report of screening committee was placed before the review committee and that also affirmed the view taken by the screening committee. The appointing authority on basis of the recommendations made by the committees decided to weed out the appellant from service in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule(1) of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, as such that serves public interest.