Honble MADAN, J. – The petitioner, who is serving as a Warden in the Central Jail, Udaipur has filed this writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as Warden on two years probation after his selection by the Selection Committee in July, 1977. According to the petitioner-appellant, during the course of his employment his performance had been satisfactory. The services of the petitioner-appellant were terminated vide office order dated 7.7.1989 (Annex. 1). The impugned order was not received by the petitioner-appellant. The petitioner appellant was ordered to be discharged under Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (here-in-after referred to as the 1966 Rules). During the period of probation the petitioner-appellants performance was verified to be good. The petitioner appellant was discharged from service on the ground that he was convicted by the Childrens Court, Bharatpur for offences under Section 337 & 341 of the I.P.C. According to the petitioner-appellant his services could be terminated under Rule 29 of the 1966 Rules only when it was found that his performance during probation period was not satisfactory. The petitioner-appellants services have been terminated by way of punishment. He ought to have been given charge-sheet or at least a show cause notice. It was prayed by the petitioner-plaintiff that his appeal be accepted and the impugned order terminating his services be quashed.

(2). In view of the non-disclosure of the fact in the application form regarding the past conviction of the petitioner-appellant when he was minor he was convicted in respect of an offence U/s. 377 & 341 I.P.C. by the Childrens Court prior to his joining the service, the respondents had directed termination of his service from the department on 7.7.89. The petitioner challenged this impugned order of termination by way of an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tri- bunal Rajasthan, Jaipur & the learned Tribunal vide its Orders dated 24th July 1990 set- aside the impugned order for termination of the petitioner from service and the appeal was consequently allowed.

(3). Obvious implication of the said order, passed by the learned Tribunal is that since the Tribunal vide its well reasoned finding did not sustain the impugned order of termination and which was set-aside by the Tribunal, the petitioner should have been re-instated in service by the respondents with all consequential benefits which were admissible to him in accordance with Rules. Since the said order of the learned Tribunal was not challenged in appeal by the respondents, hence the same had become obiter and binding on the respondents and should have been implemented in letter and spirit.

(4). It has been further contended by the petitioner that since he was not re-instated in service pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the learned Tribunal, he was left with no option but to seek appropriate directions against the respondents by way of S.B.C.W.P. No. 2683/91, which was decided by this Court vide its orders dt. 29th July91. This Court while allowing the writ petition with costs, directed the respondents to implement the order of the learned tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said order with a further direction that the Government should take suitable action against the guilty officials, who were found responsible for their lapse in not having implemented the orders of the learned Tribunal dt. 24.7.90.

(5). It is surprising to note that the respondents showed scant regard not only to the orders of the learned Tribunal but also gross disobedience to the aforesaid orders, passed by this Court in the writ petition. Left with no alternative, the petitioner yet entered into a second round of litigation against the respondents by filing a Contempt Petition No. 457/91 in S.B. C.W.P No. 2683/91 (Annex. 2). In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the contempt petition, the respond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document