V K GAUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment of learned Single Judge dated 14.03.2005dismissing thereby writ petition filed by petitioner-appellant. In writ petition, petitioner-appellant had challenged order dated 24.10.1992 by which penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, was awarded to him and order dated 17.05.1994 vide which appeal filed by him against aforesaid order of penalty, was dismissed.

(2.) Appellant V.K. Gaur has appeared in person to argue his matter whereas no one has appeared from the side of respondents to oppose the appeal. The matter was nevertheless considered on its merits taking into account the arguments raised before learned Single Judge as well.

(3.) Shri V.K. Gaur, the appellant has argued that learned Single Judge erred in law in holding that opportunity of hearing envisaged in Rule 17(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal)Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the CCA Rules'),cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is left to discretion of disciplinary authority whether or not to grant such opportunity even if demanded by delinquent. It was contended that in present case, prior to imposing penalty, disciplinary authority of appellant, namely, Director General of Police, by letter dated 31.03.1990, called upon appellant to submit his reply to the notice and granted him opportunity of personal hearing. It was stipulated in that communication that appellant may appear before said authority on any working day within 15 days. The appellant submitted his reply to the notice/memo on 29.03.1990 (Annexure-9) before disciplinary authority, in which he demanded opportunity of personal hearing. This request was made in reply submitted by the appellant in response to notice dated 07.10.1988, wherein it was clearly stated by disciplinary authority that in case appellant wanted opportunity of personal haring, he could apply for same and accordingly the appellant made that request. Having decided to grant opportunity of hearing to delinquent- appellant, respondent cannot be permitted to set up a case before this Court that giving such opportunity of hearing to delinquent- appellant was only discretionary and not mandatory.