JUDGMENT 1. - Under challenge in this petition are (i) the order dated 20-12-1993 by which petitioner was awarded penalty of forfeiture of his past services and reduction to minimum of the pay scale, (ii) the order dated15-1-1994 appointing petitioner afresh to the minimum of the pay scale on the post of Forest Guard, (iii) the order dated 4-4-1994 whereby petitioner was declared surplus and (iv) the order dated 11-3-1994 whereby petitioner was posted at Tiger Project, Sawai Madhopur During Pendency of the writ petition, petitioner was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 19-5-2000. He was therefore allowed to amend the writ petition so as to also challenge the order of his compulsory retirement and therefore, the order dated 19-5-2000 retiring him compulsorily has also been challenged along with seniority list dated 11-4-1997 and 7-6-1099 wherein petitioner was shown junior most in the cadre. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Forest Guard in the services of the respondents on 9-12-1977 and was posted as such in the office of Divisional Forest officer vide order dated 28-8-1985. According to the petitioner, he was taken ill for enteric fever and was admitted to M.B.S. hospital Kota. Petitioner sought permission to leave headquarter from 28-8-1985. Since he was confined to bed and advised further treatment, he applied for extension of his leave from 1-9-1985 to 28-10-1985 and thereafter from 1-10-1985 to 15-10-1985 and then from 1-11-1985 to 10-11-1985. During this time, petitioner developed jaundice and remained under continuous treatment. Petitioner kept sending applications for extension of his leave as well as certificates of posting. Meanwhile, petitioner met with an accident and his right foot got fractured disabling him to walk around for some time. He remained admitted as indoor patient in Government Hospital Bundi during whole year of 1986 for his treatment. Total period of his absence was from 27-8-1987. Petitioner asserts that he sent leave applications as also medical certificates for all this period. However, he was shocked when he learnt from the news flashed in the newspaper on 30-10-1986 that respondents have terminated his services w.e.f. 29-10-1986. Petitioner then made an applications to the divisional Forest Officer Kota to supply him copy of the impugned-order as well as the enquiry report conducted behind his back, same however was not supplied to him. Petitioner therefore filed a writ petition being S.B.C.W.P. No. 3137/1987 challenging his termination order. Petitioner then made an applications to the divisional Forest Officer Kota to supply him copy of the impugned-order as well as the enquiry report conducted behind his back, same however was not supplied to him. Petitioner therefore filed a writ petition being S.B.C.W.P. No. 3137/1987 challenging his termination order. Grounds of challenge were that petitioner was not provided opportunity of hearing and that his explanation for absence was not considered, enquiry was held ex-parte contrary to the principles of natural justice, petitioner was never served with the charge-sheet, any other communication or notice with regard to enquiry proceedings and lastly petitioner was never served with the copy of the enquiry report prior to passing of the order of removal. 3. Writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this court on the ground of non-supply of enquiry report. Respondents were directed to serve upon the petitioner copy of the enquiry report. Respondents were directed to serve upon the petitioner copy of the enquiry report and petitioner was then required to make a representation to the disciplinary authority and pass fresh order of penalty, Petitioner rejoined duties on 13-7-1993 and was posted as Forest Guard in the office of Divisional Forest Officer on 10-8-1993. Petitioner thereafter submitted a representation to the disciplinary authority on 15-10-1993 with which he enclosed all the medical certificates for the period of his absence. The Divisional Forest Officer issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 27-11-1993 enclosing therewith the copy of the enquiry report and called the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty of removal may not be awarded to him. Petitioner submitted reply to the above notice on 7-12-1993 requesting that since he has explained period of absence and has produced the documents such as medical certificates etc., his case may be considered sympathetically. The Divisional Forest Officer Kota vide his letter dated 9-12-1993 required the petitioner to appear before him in person on 14-12-1993 for hearing. Divisional Forest Officer, Kota finally passed fresh order of penalty dated 20-12-1993 referred to above, directing forfeiture of his past service for wilful absence from 28-8-1985 to 28-10-1986. It was further directed that he shall be given fresh appointment and that he shall be reduced to the minimum of the pay scale on the post of Forest Guard. Divisional Forest Officer, Kota finally passed fresh order of penalty dated 20-12-1993 referred to above, directing forfeiture of his past service for wilful absence from 28-8-1985 to 28-10-1986. It was further directed that he shall be given fresh appointment and that he shall be reduced to the minimum of the pay scale on the post of Forest Guard. Petitioner has therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed in the above referred to terms. 4. I have heard Shri Kamlakar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government. 5. Shri Kamlakar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that enquiry proceedings were initiated ex-parte without any notice to the petitioner. He was not even served with copy of charge-sheet. No notice with regard to pendency of enquiry was served on the petitioner even by the enquiry officer. Even though this Court while remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority required the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the charges against him and the petitioner submitted the representation along with the medical certificates and applications for extension of his leave. Same however was not considered by the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel refuted suggestion of the respondents that petitioner was sent letters/notice for participating in the enquiry and the petitioner refused. Neither any postman nor any other employee to substantiate this was produced. No opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses relied on by the enquiry officer in support of his findings was provided to the petitioner. The proceeding of enquiry was stated to be fixed on 14-3-1986 but since notices of the same could not be served on the petitioner, enquiry proceedings were deferred to 7-4-1986 and considering the fact that notice for the said date was also not communicated to the petitioner, enquiry proceedings were again deferred to 21-4-1986. None of the intimations or communications was sent to the petitioner even by post. Yet, ex-parte proceedings were drawn that petitioner refused to accept the notices. Notice to the effect that 21-4-1986 was the date fixed for disciplinary proceedings, was served on the petitioner. No member of the preventive force was examined to prove the fact hat service of notice had been effected on the petitioner or he had refused to accept the petitioner or he had refused to accept the notice. Notice to the effect that 21-4-1986 was the date fixed for disciplinary proceedings, was served on the petitioner. No member of the preventive force was examined to prove the fact hat service of notice had been effected on the petitioner or he had refused to accept the petitioner or he had refused to accept the notice. The enquiry proceedings were thus held in total disregard to the principles of natural justice. Learned Single Judge also did not examine these arguments while allowing the writ petition as he did not deem it necessary to go into all these questions because writ petition deserved acceptance on the ground of non supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner. 6. Shri Kamlakar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the disciplinary authority was wholly incompetent to impose penalty of forfeiture of past services as no such penalty is specified under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. Action of the respondents in forefeiting his past services was further in violation of Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 as no such penalty is provided therein. The order directing forfeiture of past services is therefore void ab initio. It was argued that even otherwise, penalty of forfeiture of past service and reduction of minimum of pay scale was wholly grossly disproportionate to the gravity of charge proved. Absence of the petitioner was for the reasons of his ill health, and accident resulting into fracture in, his right foot. It was argued that subsequent order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was passed due to mala fides on the part of the respondents. This was intended to get rid of the petitioner, who was inlitigation with the respondents, Petitioner has been subjected to double jeopardy inasmuch as he was penalised twice for the same allegation of misconduct. While his services were forfeitured and he was treated junior-most and declared surplus. It was argued that there was no such adversity against the petitioner so as to render him completely unfit for retention in service or that he had become a dead wood to be chopped off. 7. While his services were forfeitured and he was treated junior-most and declared surplus. It was argued that there was no such adversity against the petitioner so as to render him completely unfit for retention in service or that he had become a dead wood to be chopped off. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that order of compulsory retirement reflects total non application of mind, which was even otherwise incompetent because if petitioner had been appointed afresh vide order dated 15-1-1994, he did not on the date of passing of the order, even complete the qualifying service of 15 years as per the amended Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996. Respondents themselves were uncertain about this. D.F.O. Kota wrote letter to the Conservator of Forest recommending grant of pension. Conservator of Forest however wrote back to the D.F.O. Kota on 4-4-2002 that retirement of the petitioner was not in conformity with Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996, then what were the grounds for his compulsory retirement and this fact should have been brought to the notice of the screening committee. It was submitted that the order of penalty as also the order of compulsory retirement have been passed arbitrarily in colourable exercise of powers in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice and without there being any application of mind. These orders are therefore liable to be quashed and set-aside. 8. Per contra, Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that petitioner was transferred from Kota to Sultanpur vide order dated 22-2-1985 and petitioner did not accept this posting and left the office on his own without any prior sanction or leave. Petitioner applied for grant of leave from 27-8-1985 to 1-9-1985, which was never granted by the D.F.O. Kota. Neither reason for leave was mentioned nor was it stated as to what kind of leave should be granted. Subsequently, petitioner applied for leave from 2-9-1985 to 11-9-1985 on valid reason but it was not accompanied by any sickness certificate. Leave was therefore not granted and the D.F.O. vide letter dated 3-9-1985 informed that he was treated as wilfully absent requiring him to immediately Join duties. Yet, petitioner applied for extension of leave on 12.9.1985 to 30.9.1985 but this time also he did not submit any sickness certificate/medical certificate nor he did mention kind of illness. Leave was therefore not granted and the D.F.O. vide letter dated 3-9-1985 informed that he was treated as wilfully absent requiring him to immediately Join duties. Yet, petitioner applied for extension of leave on 12.9.1985 to 30.9.1985 but this time also he did not submit any sickness certificate/medical certificate nor he did mention kind of illness. It was denied that petitioner sent any medical certificate for his illness for the period from 1-11-1985 to 10-11-19815. 9. It was argued that medical certificates enclosed by the petitioner with this writ petition do not bear any number, name of the hospital, name of the disease etc. And on the face of the certificates, it is clear that they have been engineered and are not reliable. Petitioner has not deliberately participated in the departmental proceedings. He is therefore now estopped from questioning legality of the enquiry proceedings. In fact, for the period w.e.f. 1-4-1986 to 30-4-1986 and 18-8-1986 to 30-8-1986 and also the fitness certificate dated 19-10-1986 were not produced by the petitioner in original but photocopies thereof were produced and reason assigned by the petitioner for this was that original thereof were lost from the records of the High Court Order of penalty was passed in compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 24-6-1993 and it was by this order that petitioner was appointed afresh w.e.f. 17-7-1993. It was submitted that due to closure of Forest Scheme, 342 posts of Forest Guards were abolished. Reference was made to the order of the Government dated 11-3-1994 to this effect. Out of these, 15 posts of Forest Guards in Bundi Forest Division itself were abolished. Reference was made to the order of the Government dated 11-3-1994 to this effect. Out of these, 15 posts of Forest Guards in Bundi Forest Division itself were abolished. Petitioner being junior most in Bundi Division was rendered surplus. Petitioner was adjusted in the Project in Sawai Madhopur. There was not direction for payment of backwages in judgment of this Court dated 24-6-1993. Learned Additional Government Counsel denied that petitioner was not afforded full opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings. Copy of charge- sheet was served upon him and enquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 25-2-1986. Petitioner was adjusted in the Project in Sawai Madhopur. There was not direction for payment of backwages in judgment of this Court dated 24-6-1993. Learned Additional Government Counsel denied that petitioner was not afforded full opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings. Copy of charge- sheet was served upon him and enquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 25-2-1986. Enquiry officer vide letter dated 4-3-1986 required the petitioner to appear before him on 14-3-1986 and thereafter, he sent another letter on 21-3-1986 requiring the petitioner to appear before him on 7-6-1986 but inspite of his, petitioner did not appear before him. Enquiry officer thereafter sent yet another letter on 9-4-1986 by registered post with acknowledgment due again requiring the petitioner to appear before him on 21-4-1986. Envelope containing this letter was returned with remark that petitioner has refused to accept the same. Even then, enquiry officer vide letter dated 26-6-1986 again informed the petitioner to appear before him at D.F.O. office Kota on 2-12-1986 and at Bundi on 6-5-1986. Even this letter which was sent by registered post was not accepted by the petitioner and same was returned back with the remark of his refusal. Therefore, the officials affixed the notice on the wall of the residence of the petitioner. Still, the enquiry officer sent yet another letter on 17-5-1986 requiring the petitioner to appear before him on 5-6-1986. In fact, reasons stated by the petitioner for his absence were required to be verified in view of his conduct and therefore Chief Medical & Health Officer Bundi was asked vide letter dated 11-10-1985 to medically examine the petitioner. Copy of this letter was sent to the petitioner but he refused to accept the same. Copy of the envelope containing remarks of refusal is placed on record. Thereafter when the matter was remanded back by this Court, petitioner was given fresh notice along with copy of enquiry report and after receiving explanation and giving him chance of personal hearing, fresh order of penalty was passed on 20-12-1993. There was thus not illegality or irregularity in passing of the aforesaid order of penalty. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material forming part of the record. 11. There was thus not illegality or irregularity in passing of the aforesaid order of penalty. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material forming part of the record. 11. Under challenge in this writ petition are various orders such as the order of penalty by which past services of the petitioner were forfeited with reduction to minimum of pay scale, order granting him fresh appointment, order declaring him surplus and order of his compulsory retirement, which was passed by the respondents during the pendency of the present writ petition. Although , in my considered view, all these orders give rise to distinct and different causes of action and therefore, could not be joined in one petition. Since the writ petition was originally filed in the year 1994, which was allowed to be amended so as to challenge the order of his compulsory retirement passed in the year 2000 during the pendency of the writ petition, notwithstanding the fact that petitioner suffer from misjoinder of causes of action, I do not deem it proper now at this distance of time to non-suit the petitioner by denying him remedy against any of these orders. I therefore proceed to examine the matter on merits. 12. Respondents have passed fresh order of penalty vide order dated 20-12-1993. Earlier to this, petitioner in the same departmental proceedings was removed on 29-10-1986 which order was removed on 29-10-1986 which order was challenged by him before this Court. Argument has been raised that this Court remanded the matter after setting aside the order of removal on the ground that same was passed against the principles of natural justice. Petitioner was given liberty to make a representation raising all these grounds which were raised before this Court, therefore, it was obligatory upon the disciplinary authority to give full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner because earlier enquiry proceedings were held absolutely contrary to the principles of natural justice. It was argued that petitioner was never served with any notice nor he ever refused to receive any letter or communication sent to him by the enquiry officer either through postman or through any other employee of the department. Action of the respondents in holding ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner was therefore bad in the eye of law. Such an action is therefore mala fide. Action of the respondents in holding ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner was therefore bad in the eye of law. Such an action is therefore mala fide. This argument is required to be considered in the light of the findings recorded by this Court in its judgment dated 24-6-1993 whereby, the order inflicting penalty of removal was set-aside and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment would show that although many arguments were raised, which are again being raised now with regard to legality of ex-parte proceedings but this Court did not go into the merits of those arguments and confined its examination to the aspect of non-supply of copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. Relying on certain earlier judgments on the question of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, this Court set-aside the order of removal and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order with direction to reinstate the petitioner back in service. Question as to legality of the action of the respondents in proceeding ex-parte enquiry against the petitioner was thus left open. There is therefore no impediment, for the petitioner to raise such questions again passed on the basis of very same departmental enquiry. 13. Respondents with reply to writ petitioner have produced on record copy of the office order dated 25-2-1986 with which charge-sheet containing 50 pages was a served upon him. Respondents have asserted that copy of memorandum of charge-sheet dated 17-2-1986 was delivered to the petitioner vide registered post acknowledgement due and petitioner did not reply the same. Enquiry officer sent to the petitioner letter on 9-4-1985 again by registered post asking him appear before him on 21-4-1986 but the same was returned back in original with the remarks of his refusal and they waited for several months for his reply, ultimately, the enquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 5-12-1986. Photocopy of the order to this effect was communicated to the petitioner by the D.F.O. Bundi which too was refused to be accepted by the petitioner. Copy of the letter along with envelope containing refusal is produced on record. Enquiry officer vide letter dated 4-3-1986 required the petitioner to appear before him on 14-3-1986. Inspite of service of the said letter, petitioner did not appear. Copy of the letter along with envelope containing refusal is produced on record. Enquiry officer vide letter dated 4-3-1986 required the petitioner to appear before him on 14-3-1986. Inspite of service of the said letter, petitioner did not appear. Enquiry officer then sent another letter on 21-3-1986 asking appear before him on 7-4-1986. This letter was also served upon the petitioner but he did not appear. Then, enquiry officer sent yet another letter on 9-4-1986 by registered post AD asking him to appear again on 21-4-1986. Letter was returned back with the remarks that petitioner has refused to acknowledge the same. Copy of the letter as also the envelope containing remark of refusal are placed on record. Enquiry Officer then again vide letter dated 26-4-1986 informed the petitioner to appear before him on 2-5-1986 at D.F.O. Office, Kora and on 6/5/1986 at D.F.O. office, Bundi. This letter was also sent to the petitioner by registered Post. Petitioner however ever refused to acknowledge the receipt of said, letter. Still, petitioner did not co-operate with the enquiry officer. Enquiry officer then this time decided to send communication through Flying Squad Kota to deliver the letter personally to the petitioner in the presence of the witnesses. Hari Prasad, Forester, Laxmi Narayan, Forest Guard and Ram Kumar Meena were, appointed to go to the house of the petitioner. These persons offered the letter to the petitioner at his residence but the petitioner refused to accept the same and therefore same was decided to be affixed outside his residence in the presence of the witnesses. Petitioner therefore was again in formed by the enquiry officer vide letter dated 7-5-1986 to appear and participate in the enquiry on 16-5-1986. This letter was also sent by registered post. Petitioner refused to receive the same. Copy of envelope containing his refusal his on record. Enquiry officer than again sent communication to the petitioner vide letter dated 17-5-1986 asking him toappear before him at camp Bundi on 5-6-1986. This letter was sent through registered post. This time also, petitioner refused to accept the letter. Copy of the letter and envelope containing refusal by the petitioner are placed on record. Enquiry officer than again sent communication to the petitioner vide letter dated 17-5-1986 asking him toappear before him at camp Bundi on 5-6-1986. This letter was sent through registered post. This time also, petitioner refused to accept the letter. Copy of the letter and envelope containing refusal by the petitioner are placed on record. In the face of all such overwhelming evidence, which the petitioner has not been able to rebut by filing any rejoinder or otherwise, it cannot be said that the respondents did not make any effort to serve upon the petitioner notice of enquiry proceedings. In fact, what is contrarily evident is that respondents continuously kept on making efforts to persuade the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and each time petitioner refused to acknowledge the communications sent to him and deliberately avoided to participate in the enquiry. In the face of such proceedings, large number of letters ad dressed to the petitioner and equally large number of refusals, it can safely be concluded that petitioner is to blame himself for ex-parte enquiry proceedings. Such a delinquent can not be allowed to complain of violation of principles of natural justice because the concept of principles of natural justice implies justice to both the parties. Such principles have to be applied in an even handed manner. This being a principle of equity, has to be applied on the facts of a given case keeping in view the conduct of the parties. 14. Coming now to the question whether the charges against the petitioner can be taken to have been proved by preponderance of evidence, I find three charges against petitioner; one was to the effect that petitioner was willfully absent from service on 27-8-1985. Charge No. 2 was to the effect that even after his transfer, petitioner did not accept the transfer order and remained absent. Charge No. 3 was to the effect that petitioner applied for medical leave. He was required to appear before the medical board and when such a letter requiring him to appear before the medical board was sought to be delivered to him, he though read a letter but he did not acknowledge the same. Petitioner has agitated before this Court that he was taken ill and had enteric fever and was hospitalized at Kota. He applied for leave with permission to leave the headquarter w.e.f. 28-8-1985 to 31.8.1985. Petitioner has agitated before this Court that he was taken ill and had enteric fever and was hospitalized at Kota. He applied for leave with permission to leave the headquarter w.e.f. 28-8-1985 to 31.8.1985. Then sent his application by post for extension of leave from 1-9-1985 to 28.10.1985 as he was advised complete bed rest. Then he produced medical certificates from 1.11.1985 to 10.11.1985. In the meanwhile, he developed jaundice. He become very weak. Then, in the quick succession, he met with an accident and got his right foot fractured. It was owing to all these reasons that he could not attend at the new place of posting. Stand of the department before the enquiry officer was that petitioner absented from duties because he wanted to avoid his transfer. He joined his duty in the office of D.F.O. Kota on 16-8-1985 wherefrom he was posted to Sultanpur vide order dated 22-8-1985 but instead of joining at the transferred place, he proceeded on leave. He on lame excuses applied for medical leave. When the leave application was examined, on3-9-1985, petitioner instead of joining, applied for extension of leave. In none of the applications, did he mention kind of the disease and where he was getting treatment from. In fact, stand of the respondents has been that medical certificates produced by the petitioner, which have been produced even before this Court, did not contain name of the hospital, name of the disease, seal of the concerned hospital/doctor. They simply declare the petitioner sick and advised him rest. It was in this context that respondents have stated that petitioner was required to appear before the medical board so that he could be examined with reference to his assertion that he was sick. Thus, not only Charge No. 2 regarding refusal to accept transfer order but also Charge No. 3 regarding the fact that he denied to acknowledge the letter asking him to appear before the medical board for his examination were also proved against the petitioner. On the third charge, it is also alleged that petitioner when he was offered the latter asking him to appear before the medical board, he did not accept such letter even after having read it. 15. On the third charge, it is also alleged that petitioner when he was offered the latter asking him to appear before the medical board, he did not accept such letter even after having read it. 15. In view of all this evidence, it cannot be said that this is a case in which enquiry officer acted arbitrarily or illegally or recorded findings of guilt without any evidence or that it was a case of no evidence. Sufficiency or otherwise of evidence cannot be gone into by this Court so as to examine validity of the order passed by the disciplinary authority. If there is some evidence to prove the charges on the basis of which a reasonable man of ordinary prudence can arrive at such findings, which have been arrived at by the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority, such a conclusion cannot be said to be perverse or otherwise erroneous. Findings an charges in the present case from the very nature thereof clearly show that not only petitioner did not want to join the place of his transfer and avoided joining but also avoided appearance before the medical board. If at all petitioner wanted his stand to be vindicated, he should have not only participated in the enquiry proceedings to produce all the medical certificates but also faced the medical board. Conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer and on that basis, by the disciplinary authority that charges against the petitioner were proved, are therefore not open to interference. 16. This brings the discussion to the aspect of validity of penalty order, whether in the scope of Rule 14 of the C.C.A. Rules, penalty of forfeiture of past service of the petitioner from 9-12-1977 to 22-12-1993 and reduction to the minimum of pay scale on the post of Forest Guard by granting him fresh appointment from the date of rejoining, could be awarded in a disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules and further whether gravity of the charge against the petitioner is such that this would justify imposition of such penalty. Apart from refusal of the petitioner to accept the order of transfer and to appear before the medical board, what is in substance the exactness of the charges is that he remained willfully absent from 28-8-1985 to 28-10-1986. Apart from refusal of the petitioner to accept the order of transfer and to appear before the medical board, what is in substance the exactness of the charges is that he remained willfully absent from 28-8-1985 to 28-10-1986. In other words, it was a case of willful absence from duty for a total period of 14 months, what is clear from the decision of the disciplinary authority is that charge proved against the petitioner is grave enough to justify imposition of the penalty but then the question that requires consideration is whether the kind of penalty that has been imposed by the disciplinary authority is such as would be permissible under Rule 14 in the disciplinary proceedings held under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules. In order to appreciate the above rule, it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 14 of the C.C.A. Rules, which is as under:- "14 Nature of penalties.-The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons which shall be recorded, and as here in after provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely:- (i) censure; (ii) withholding of increments or promotion; (iii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of any law rule or order; (iv) reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale or in the case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules; (v) compulsory retirement on proportion ate pension; (vi) removal from service which shall ordinarily not be a disqualification for further employment; (vii) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for further employment. Explanation.- (1) The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of the rule:- (i) withholding of increments of a Government servant for failure to pass a departmental examination in accordance with the rules or orders governing the service or post or the terns of his appointment; (ii) stoppage of Government servant at the efficiency bar iii the time scale on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar; (iii) non-promotion whether in a substantive or officiating capacity of Government servant, after consideration of his case, to a service, grade or post for promotion to which he is eligible; (iv) reversion to a lower service, grade or post of a Government servant officiating in a higher service , grade or post on the ground that he is considered after trial, to be unsuitable for such higher service, grade or post or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct; (v) reversion to his, permanent service, grade or post of a Government servant appointed on probation to another service, grade or post during or at the end of the period of Probation in accordance with the terms. of his appointment or the rules and orders governing probation; (vi) compulsory retirement of a Government servant in accordance with the provisions relating to his superannuation or retirement; (vii) termination of the service - (a) of a Government servant appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing probation; or (b) of a temporary Government servant appointed otherwise then under contract on the expiration of the period of appointment; (c) of a Government servant employed under an agreement, in accordance with the terms of such agreement; (d) of a Government servant in the services of any of the integrating units of Rajasthan, on non-selection or non-absorption for appointment in any of the services of the integrated State of Rajasthan in accordance with the integration rules. Explanation.- (2) The discharge of a person appointed on an ad-hoc or provisional basis to any of the posts in the integrated setup of the Rajasthan Services otherwise than for reasons of non-selection or non- absorption to any such services or posts in accordance with the integrated rules, shall amount to removal or dismissal as the case may be. [Note. Explanation.- (2) The discharge of a person appointed on an ad-hoc or provisional basis to any of the posts in the integrated setup of the Rajasthan Services otherwise than for reasons of non-selection or non- absorption to any such services or posts in accordance with the integrated rules, shall amount to removal or dismissal as the case may be. [Note. - The disqualification for future employment on account of dismissal under Rule 14(vii) can only be waived by the Government if the merits of an individual case so justify.]" 17. A perusal of Rule 14 aforesaid makes it clear that there are in this rule seven such penalties, which for the good and sufficient reasons, could be imposed upon a Government servant. Forfeiture of past service is certainly not one of the penalties enumerated in Rule 14. Though, the argument may be made with reference to Rule 86 of R.S.R. 1951 that for absence of such a length of time, past services of a delinquent could be forfeited. Rule 86 (1) of R.S.R. provides that a Government servant who is absent from duty without leave or before leave applied for, has been sanctioned by the competent authority, shall be treated to have remained, wilfully absent from duty; and such absence shall amount to interruption in service involving forfeiture of past service unless, on satisfactory reasons being furnished, the absence is regularised by grant of leave due or is commuted into extra-ordinary leave by the authority competent to sanction leave. But even if Government servant is sought to be proceeded against in the scope of Rule 86 on the allegation of willful absence, this can be done only by recourse to regular disciplinary Proceedings under the C.C.A. Rules 9, Rule 86 was purposely amended vide notification of the Government dated 12-1-1976 to provide that notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-rules (1) & (2) thereof, the disciplinary authority may initiate disciplinary Proceedings under C.C.A. Rules against the Government servant who wilfully remains absent from duty for a period exceeding one month and if the charge of wilful absence from duty is proved against him, he may be removed from service. Rule 86(3) thus in effect provides that wilful absence of a Government servant may become a ground for proceeding against him in departmental action under C.C.A. Rules and he may be liable to be removed on proof of such charge. 18. Rule 86(3) thus in effect provides that wilful absence of a Government servant may become a ground for proceeding against him in departmental action under C.C.A. Rules and he may be liable to be removed on proof of such charge. 18. There is thus an obvious anomaly between these two set of rules that while Rule 86(1) supra provides for forfeiture of the past services but at the same time, its sub-rule (3) provides that when a Government servant is charged for willful absence for period exceeding one month, action against him can be taken only in accordance with the C.C.A. Rules. But C.C.A. Rules do not provide for penalty of forfeiture of past service and on that basis grant fresh appointment. But at the same time; clause (iv) of Rule 14 provides, reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time scale or to a lower time scale of pay as one of the penalties. In the present case, there are three penalties that have been actually imposed upon the petitioner. One is forfeiture of his past services, second is reducing him to minimum of pay scale and third, whereby he was granted fresh appointment. But, the first and third of these penalties are two sides of the same coin namely; that petitioner has been given fresh appointment only because of forfeiture of his services and which is why, obviously, he has been fixed at the lowest of the grade of the post of Forest Guard. In my considered view, only possible penalty with reference to clause (iv) of Rule 14 that could be awarded as authorised under the law would be reduction to minimum of the grade on the post of Forest Guard. 19. Coming now to the order dated 4-4-1994 by which he was declared surplus and the subsequent order dated 11-3-1994. Whereby he has been posted at Tiger Project, Sawai Madhopur, this Court vide its order dated 15-9-1994 stayed the operation of the aforesaid orders. It has been informed that petitioner has till date been continued at the same old place, albeit, in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court. Subsequent order by which petitioner has been Compulsorily retired and his pension papers have been forwarded have all been taken at the behest of D.F.O. Bundi. It has been informed that petitioner has till date been continued at the same old place, albeit, in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court. Subsequent order by which petitioner has been Compulsorily retired and his pension papers have been forwarded have all been taken at the behest of D.F.O. Bundi. According to the petitioner, action of both, declaring the petitioner surplus and transferring him have been actuated by mala fides on the part of the respondents because of his having approached this Court and filling the writ petition. Respondents however have contested this allegation by asserting that decision to declare the petition surplus was passed be cause the scheme in which petitioner was working was closed down which resulted in abolition of 15 posts of Forest Guards under D.F.O. Bundi. But as asserted by the petitioner, action of the respondents in declaring the petitioner as surplus was based on their decision to forfeit his past services and thereby treated to have been freshly appointed on the post of Forest Guard vide order dated 15-1-1994. According to the petitioner, if he was treated to have been appointed from the initial date of appointment, he would stand much higher in the seniority whereas in the seniority list dated 11-4-1997, petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 74, as junior most Forest Guard and thereafter in these, seniority list dated 7-6-1999, he has again been shown as junior most. Respondents are not in a position to dispute this position. Once their decision to forfeit his past service has been held to be illegal, as a necessary corollary thereto, decision to declare the petitioner surplus also cannot be sustained and on that basis decision to declare him surplus and transferring him must also be quashed. 20. Adverting lastly to the question whether respondents were justified in retiring the petitioner compulsorily, plea of the respondents is that decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was based on appreciation of his entire service record. It is contended that competent authority has passed the order to compulsorily retire the petitioner on the basis of the recommendations made by the screening committee, which in turn forwarded the matter of the petitioner to the reviewing committee. Review committee considered entire service record of the petitioner and decided to recommend compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest. It is contended that competent authority has passed the order to compulsorily retire the petitioner on the basis of the recommendations made by the screening committee, which in turn forwarded the matter of the petitioner to the reviewing committee. Review committee considered entire service record of the petitioner and decided to recommend compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest. Reference is made to the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner order dated 12-8-1980, punishment of censure mere dated 29-12-1980 yet, another penalty order of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect dated 7-4-1983, penalty order of stoppage dated 7-12-1981 and penalty order dated 20-12-1993 which is impugned in the present writ petition by which his past services were forfeited and he was granted fresh appointment. Besides this, it is contended that APAR of the years 1983 to 1984, 1984 to 1985 to 1986 and 1999 to 2000 were not found satisfactory. Though all these penalties may independently provide justification for compulsory retirement of a Government servant but in the peculiar facts of the case, all this appears to have been done in hot haste without even verifying as to if the petitioners has completed qualifying service of 15 years. When the respondents themselves decided to treat the petitioner as having been appointed afresh vide order dated 15-1-1994 and on that basis, declared him surplus for the purpose of his absorption in another division, how possibly could they treat him to have completed minimum qualifying period of 15 years to retire him compulsorily. In fact, Conservator of Forest, Kota vide his letter dated 25-9-2000 addressed to D.F.O. Bundi called for the clarification whether services of the petitioner, which had been forfeited; should be treated as qualifying or not for the purpose of pension and whether any such order has been passed by the competent authority in this behalf. The Divisional Forest Officer vide letter dated 3-10-2000 sent stating that there is no mention in the order of penalty dated 20-12-1993 that his past service would be countable for the purpose of pension. The Divisional Forest Officer vide letter dated 3-10-2000 sent stating that there is no mention in the order of penalty dated 20-12-1993 that his past service would be countable for the purpose of pension. In other words, what he intended to convey and rightly so, was that if past services stood forfeited and they could not be counted towards pensionable service, how possibly they could be counted for the purpose of computing qualifying service of 15 years with reference to Rule 53(7) of the Pension Rules, 1996 which makes one eligible for compulsory retirement. Rule 53(7) supra for this purpose needs to be appreciated and therefore is quoted in extenso as under:- "53(7). Orders requiring a Government employee to retire alter completing [15 years] qualifying service should, as a rule, not be issued until after the fact that the Government employee has indeed completed, or would be completing on date of retirement, qualifying service of [15] years, has been verified by the appointing authority in consultation with the senior most member of the Rajasthan Accounts service posted in the Department." 21. A perusal of the aforequoted rule makes it clear that a Government employee could be compulsorily retired only after he has completed 15 years of qualifying service. When the respondents themselves are taking the petitioner as fresh appointee w.e.f. 15-1-1994 and further, on that basis treating him juniormost in his cadre and on that basis, declaring him surplus, they could not have possibly initiated action for his compulsory retirement. Respondents could not in law be permitted to take one stand for one purpose and another for another purpose. All these facts thus clearly show that there was an attempt to get rid of the petitioner inspite of the earlier order of the disciplinary authority to forfeit the services of the petitioner. A Government servant could not be compulsorily retired in the face of the fact that he has not completed minimum quailifying service of 15 years because otherwise petitioner had as on the date of passing of the order of compulsory retirement merely completed 6 years and 3 months which obviously does not make him eligible even for grant of pension. Therefore, retiring the petitioner thus reflects total non application of mind which reflects a clear attempt to get rid of the petitioner in hot haste manner even in the face of the pendency of the present writ petition. Therefore, retiring the petitioner thus reflects total non application of mind which reflects a clear attempt to get rid of the petitioner in hot haste manner even in the face of the pendency of the present writ petition. Clearly, this order has been passed in an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power and is therefore liable to be quashed and set-aside being hit by Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 22. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed in the terms indicated above and the order of penalty dated 20-12-1993 is modified and it is declared that this order would hold valid only to the extent of reduction of petitioner to the lowest of the grade on the post of Forest Guard with effect from the date of passing of the aforesaid order and it is quashed to the extent it imposes forfeiture of his past service and consequently, the order dated 15-1-1994 appointing the petitioner afresh on the post of Forest Guard is also quashed and set-aside. The order dated 4-4-1994 declaring the petitioner as surplus is also quashed and set-aside and consequentially order dated 11-3-1994 whereby petitioner was posted at Tiger Project, Sawai Madhopur is also quashed and set-aside and lastly the order dated 19-5-2003 whereby petitioner was compulsorily retired from service is also quashed and set-aside. Petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement in services with consequential benefits. 23. The writ petition is allowed in the terms indicated above, with no order as to costs.Compliance of the judgment shall be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. Petition allowed. Petition allowed. *******