PHOOL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, was employed as a Patwari. While he was posted at Village Goda Hema, Tehsil -Sanchore, he was served with a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as ' the Rules') whereby, the petitioner was informed that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him under the Rules on seven charges set out in the statement of charges and explained in the statement of allegations appended to the said memorandum The petitioner submitted his reply on July 30, 1976, wherein, he refuted the said charges, and submitted that the charges have been falsely levelled against him at the instance of certain person) who were inimical toward the petitioner. By his order dated 16th April/August, 1976 the Collector, Jalore, appointed the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhinmal, as the Enquiry Officer, to conduct an enquiry into the aforesaid charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on June 25, 1977, wherein, he found the petitioner guilty of all the charges except charge No 3 On July 20, 1977, the Collector sent a notice to the petitioner, whereby he informed the petitioner that considering the report of tie Enquiry Officer, he had arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner should be dismissed from the service, and the petitioner was required to show cause against the proposed punishment. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice the petitioner submitted a representation on August 8, 1977, wherein, he submitted that the charges levelled against him had not been proved In his reply aforesaid, the petitioner also submitted that the Enquiry Officer had wrongly closed the evidence of the petitioner on April 30, 1977, even though, the petitioner had sent a telegram informing the Enquiry Officer about his iliness and his inability, to appear before the Enquiry Officer on April 30, 1977. The Collector, Jalore, by his order dated September 23, 1977 imposed the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, against the aforesaid order passed by the Collector, Jalore dated September 23, 1977. The said appeal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue by its order dated October 4,1978. Being aggrieved by the order dated September 23. 1977, passed by the Collector, Jalore, removing the petitioner from service, and the order dated October 4, 1978, passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioner has filed this writ petition wherein, he has prayed that a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, be issued to quash the aforesaid orders.

(2.) IN the writ petition, aforesaid, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated September 23, 1977 passed by the Collector, Jalore, removing the petitioner from his service on the ground that the Collector did not consider the submissions made by the petitioner, in his reply to the show cause notice and that the order which was passed by the Collector, was in contravention of the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules. In the writ petition), the petitioner has also challenged the validity of the order passed by the Collector, Jalore on the ground that the Collector while imposing the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner, bad taken into considaration the fact that the petitioner had been punished once in the year 1976 and twice in the year 1977, and that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to submit his explanation with regard to his past conduct on which reliance had been placed by the Collector for imposing the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. As regards the order dated October 4 1978, passed by the Board of Revenue the case of the petitioner is that the said order cannot be held to be a speaking order in as much as the Board of Revenue has failed to take into consideration the various points raised by the petitioner in his appeal, even though they were urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments before the Board of Revenue.

(3.) AS regards the order dated September 23,1977, passed by the Collector, Jalore. imposing the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner, Shri Mridul, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged the following contentions: