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