[2025:RJ-JP:38598] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 968/2001 Ram Chandra Kuri aged about 54 years son of Shri Birdi Chand R/o Tiba ki Dhani, Village & Post Palsana District Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Settlement Commissioner, Settlement Depratment, Gopal Bari, Jaipur. 2. Shri Mahavir Singh IAS through Commissioner, Settlement Department, Gopal Bari, Jaipur. 3. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, through its Registrar, Mini Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : None. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 19/09/2025 1. This civil writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.10.2000 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘tribunal’) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed. 2. The petitioner working with the department on the post of Inspector in the Revenue Department was compulsorily retired by the respondents by applying Rule 53A of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 vide order dated 24.04.1999. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-petitioner vide order dated 17.10.2000. [2025:RJ-JP:38598] (2 of 2) [CW-968/2001] 3. I have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed on behalf appellant-petitioner wherein the Tribunal observed as under: “geus ekeys ds lHkh rF;ksa ij fopkj fd;kA ;g Bhd gS fd vihykFkhZ dks lu~ 1997 esa inksUufr nh xbZ Fkh vkSj 1997 ds ckn dk mldk lsok vfHkys[k Hkh Bhd gS ysfdu vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fr ds fy, lEiw.kZ lsokdky dk lsok vfHkys[kk ns[kk tkuk vko’;d gksrk gSA vxj vihykFkhZ v{ke ,oa vdq’ky ik;k tkrk gS rks mls vfuok;Z lsok fuo`r fd;k tk ldrk gSA gekjs er esa bl ekeys esa vihykFkhZ dk lEiw.kZ lsok vfHkys[k ns[kus esa ;g Li"V tkfgj gksrk gS fd igys ds o"kksZa esa og lkekU; dk;Z djrk jgk ysfdu ckn esa dbZ o"kksZa esa og dbZ ckj lsok ls vuqifLFkr jgk gS vkSj fcuk vodk’k Lohd`r djk;s vuqifLFkr jgk gS] og le; ij dk;Z ugha djrk] mls vius dk;Z esa v{ke ik;k x;k rFkk mls foHkkxh; tkapksa esa nf.Mr Hkh pkj ckj fd;k x;k gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd vihykFkhZ ds dk;Z dks ns[krs gq;s mls vuko’;d :i ls lsok fuo`r fd;k x;k gS vFkkZr~ mls jkT; fgr esa vfuok;Z lsok fuo`r djus dk dksbZ vk/kkj vk/kkj ugha FkkA gekjs er esa vihykFkhZ dks tks vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fr nh xbZ gS] mlds mfpr dkj.k jgs gSaA fu"d"kZr% vihy vihykFkhZ [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA” 4. In my considered view, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner as during his entire service career in the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner, he was punished four times and he was in the habit of remaining absent from his duties. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Hence, this civil writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/1