MOHAMMAD SHABAB Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of his dismissal dated 31.8.1995 and the order rejecting his appeal by the appellate authority dated 1.3.1996.

(2.) I have heard Smt. Naina Saraf, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.F. Baig, learned Additional Government Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Smt. Naina Saraf, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Enquiry Officer was frequently changed in as much as no notice of change of Enquiry Officer was given to the petitioner and even lastly appointed Enquiry Officer without giving proper notice to the petitioner, recorded evidence of prosecution witnesses in absence of the petitioner. He did not pass the appropriate order for proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner. Respondents did not appoint any Presenting Officer. Enquiry Officer himself acted as a prosecutor while cross-examining the witnesses produced by the department and that too, in the absence of petitioner. Disciplinary Authority without supplying copy of the enquiry report and without calling upon him to submit his comments thereupon, proceeded to pass the dismissal order on 31.8.1995, therefore, sub-rules (5),(10) and (12) of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules (for short-'the CCA Rules') were flouted. Learned Counsel submitted that petitioner submitted a representation to the Disciplinary Authority with regard to business on the part of the Enquiry Officer in proceeding against him ex-parte before any decision was taken by it. Disciplinary Authority however forwarded such representation and obtained comments of the Enquiry Officer thereupon and after considering has awarded the penalty. This clearly prejudiced the mind (sic) of the petitioner, which was done without supply of the enquiry report to him. Had the copy of the enquiry report supplied to the petitioner, this would have enabled him to submit his viewpoint. Learned Counsel submitted that charge No. 3 with regard to earlier absence of the petitioner for the period from 27.1.1993 to 16.3.1993 for total 49 days, for which he was subjected to Disciplinary Authority (proceedings) and that charge was condoned by converting the absence of the petitioner into extra-ordinary leave again it could not be subject-matter of another disciplinary proceeding, as doing so would be hit by principles of double jeopardy, which is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.