Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Heeralal Menaria vs State & Ors on 8 November, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 296 / 2007
Heera Lal Menaria s/o Sh.Ram Lal Ji Menaria, by caste Menaria,
Aged 54 years, resident of Udaipur, Near Senior Higher Secondary
School Gate, Panerion-Ki-Madri, Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Deputy Inspector of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur.
4. Sh. Shriniwas Rao Janga, IPS, C/o Police Headquarters,
Jaipur. At preesent posted as Deputy Inspector General of
Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.
5. The Rajasthan Civil Services, Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA
Order 08/11/2017
1. Appointed as Constable on 10.09.1970 and promoted as Head Constable in the year 1977, earning further promotion as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 1984 the appellant earned promotion as the Sub-Inspector on 02.07.1992 with effect from 12.04.1992.
2. On appraisal of the service record he was compulsorily retired on 01.12.2000. Challenge before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by the appellant to the order of (2 of 3) [SAW-296/2007] compulsory retirement failed on 31.05.2004. Further challenge by way of writ petition failed when the impugned order dated 14.11.2006 was passed.
3. The learned Single Judge has noted that the Screening Committee took into account the service of the appellant which showed that on 31.03.1977, 21.05.1983, 14.08.1984, 30.11.1985, 29.08.1986, 16.07.1994, 29.06.1995, 23.11.1996, 29.06.1996, 01.12.1996, 31.12.1996, 26.04.1997, 28.05.1997, 30.07.1997 and 31.08.1997 penalties were levied upon the appellant.
4. Today the service record of the appellant has been produced before us and we have appraised the same for the years 1993- 1994 till 1999-2000 for the reason the order compulsorily retiring the appellant is dated 01.12.2000 and he had earned a promotion in the year 1992. The work of the appellant has been appraised as 'satisfactory' for the years 1993-1994, 1995-1996, 1996-1997, part year 1997-1998 and part year 1998-1999. For the years 1994-1995, part year 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 it is 'good'. For part year 1997-1998 it is 'unsatisfactory'.
5. Suffice it to state that since the appellant was promoted as Sub-Inspector on 02.07.1992 penalties levied up till 29.08.1986 have to be ignored and thus nothing turns on the fact that as per the appellant no penalty was levied upon him on 14.08.1984, 30.11.1985 and 29.08.1986. It is settled law that penalties levied after a person is promoted and service record pre-promotion become irrelevant.
6. Pertaining to the penalties levied in the year 1994, 1995, (3 of 3) [SAW-296/2007] 1996 and 1997 learned counsel urges that there are pleadings in the writ petition that the penalties levied in the year 1997 were a result of malice, and we find that the appellant had filed appeal against the penalties levied which were dismissed. Review was pending at the time he was compulsorily retired. Thus, for the purposes of the appeal we overlook the four penalties which were levied in the year 1997. But the penalties in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 would remain. That apart, the APAR appraisal which we have noted above shows that at best the appellant would be an officer who would be overage and it is settled law that a person who is found to be overage is liable to be compulsorily retired.
7. The appeal is dismissed.
8. No costs.
(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)C.J. Mohit Tak