1
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1168/2010
Mangi Lal.
vs.
State of Rajasthan and others.
Date : 10.2.2010
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.Pramendra Bohra, for the petitioner.
– – – – –
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner was compulsorily retired vide
order dated 28.11.2000. The petitioner challenged
the said order by preferring appeal before the
Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal which
was dismissed vide order dated 19.4.2002. Then,
the petitioner preferred SB Civil Writ Petition
No.3869/2002 before this Court which was partly
allowed and the Tribunal’s order dated 19.4.2002
was set aside and the matter was remanded to the
Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh after
taking into consideration the grounds taken by the
petitioner with regard to the competence of the
authority passing the order of compulsory
retirement for the post of A.S.I. as well as the
fact of promotion of the petitioner and the ACARs
of the petitioner for four years.
2
The Tribunal after remand vide order dated
4.11.2009 dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.
Hence, this second round of litigation before this
Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
submitted that the petitioner was promoted on
higher post. His ACRs of past five years were good
or outstanding as well as very good and in view of
the above reason, the petitioner could not have
been made to retire compulsorily.
I considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts
of the case.
The Tribunal has considered the petitioner’s
service record and found the petitioner’s
compulsorily retirement justified as the
petitioner was punished even after promotion in
the year 1995 with one year’s stoppage of wages,
with punishment of censure, with punishment of
stoppage of one grade increment, then for censure,
again for censure, then two senior officers in
internal report found that the petitioner was
involved in bribery and taking liquor and he in
total was punished 17 times under various
misconducts.
In view of the above, I do not find that there
3
can be any justification for allowing the
petitioner to invoke equitable jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and further his case has been considered
by the Tribunal twice on facts.
Consequently, this writ petition, having no
merits, is hereby dismissed.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
S.Phophaliya