STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TEJ SINGH SHEKHAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge dated 1. 2. 2007, whereby writ petition of the respondent has been allowed and the order of his compulsory retirement dated 12. 6. 1998 has been set aside. The respondent, who was serving the petitioner State as Inspector in its Settlement Department was compulsorily retired from service by the said order dated 12. 6. 1998.

(2.) SHRI Harshvardhan Nandwana, learned Government Counsel has argued that the appellants had rightly retired the respondent by invoking Rule 53 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short- `the Rules') because in the scrutiny that was made by the Review Committee, he was found to be an inefficient government servant who had become liability to the service. Reference was made to the records indicating that the respondent was awarded three penalties namely, (i) the penalty of withholding of one grade increment vide order dated 3. 12. 1988, (ii) penalty of censure vide order dated 31. 10. 1991 and (iii) yet another penalty of censure vide order dated 31. 10. 1991. It was argued that merely because the respondent was promoted in the year 1995, the effect of those penalties would not be completely wiped out. Learned Single Judge has erred in law in not correctly applying the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr.- AIR 1992 SC 1020. Even in that judgment, the Supreme Court had observed that if a government servant is promoted to a higher post, notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks loose their sting, but clarified its view by observing further that if promotion is based merely on seniority, the adverse report anterior to the date of promotion shall also have a bearing on the decision to retire him compulsorily. Learned counsel cited the judgment of Supreme Court in State of India vs. Gurdass Singh, (1998) 4 SCC 92 and argued that effect of an adverse entry even prior to the earning of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can still be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee during whole of his tenure. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Banshi Lal Nayati vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 1993 (3) WLC 215. It was argued that prior to promotion of the petitioner in 1995, he was promoted, though on temporary basis on 27. 6. 1991, but was soon thereafter reverted on 28. 9. 1993 because in between the penalty of censure had been awarded to him.

(3.) IN our view, therefore, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error of law in setting aside the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent.