1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10004/06 Jai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 27/9/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.P. Poshwal for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Avasthi, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.5.1995 by which he was awarded penalty of censor and the subsequent order dated 27.9.04 by which his appeal was dismissed and the order dated 28.11.05 by which his review petition was dismissed and has further prayed that the respondents be directed to grant him third selection scale during the aforesaid penalty. Shri S.P. Poshwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the summons were actually not handed over to him for service and therefore he could not be awarded the penalty of censure. The petitioner initially filed appeal before the D.I.G. who returned the appeal with the order that he should approached the S.P. 2 When the petitioner filed the appeal before the S.P., he dismissed the same as having become time barred and subsequently his review petition filed before the reviewing authority was also dismissed as time barred. Learned counsel argued that because of the penalty of censure and one penalty of stoppage of grade increment, the grant of third selection scale to him has been deferred for nine years which is wholly illegally. The writ petition be therefore allowed in terms of the prayers made above. The respondents have opposed the writ petition and argued that the penalty of censure was rightly awarded to the petitioner. Though the petitioner upon completion of 27 years of service was entitled to benefit of third selection scale on 23.1.1999 but on account of penalty of censure and one more penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect, this would now be deferred and the petitioner would now be entitled to receive his third selection scale belatedly on 23.11.2008. Upon consideration of the arguments 3 aforesaid and the perusal of the material on record, I find that the penalty of censure awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be without any justification and therefore even if the appeals and review petition of the petitioner have been dismissed barred by limitation, this Court cannot interfere with the penalty of censure in view of the nature of allegations which have been found proved and quantum of penalty imposed. At the same time, however, penalty of censure and stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect could not have had the effect of deferring the grant of third selection scale to him for nine years. The respondents have not cited any instructions or rule to support their stand. Although it is true that for deciding whether or not to grant selection scale, the service record may have to be seen to find out whether the incumbent has rendered satisfactory service. But then, effect of two minor penalties i.e. censure and stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect cannot be such to deny this benefit for a long period of nine years. The respondents have misinterpreted 4 the relevant instructions of the government that selection scale in lieu of promotion is to be given at the interval of every nine years. And once they found service record of the petitioner not satisfactory, they have skipped the complete span of nine years for the third selection scale, which cannot be justified in law. At the maximum, the selection scale of the petitioner could be deferred by two years because of the two penalties referred to above, after which period the petitioner would come out of the effect of such penalties. The petitioner would thus be entitled to receive his third selection scale on 23.1.99 and not on 23.11.08 as asserted by the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. The respondents are directed to grant to the petitioner third selection grade on 23.01.99. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/