SHRI SURYA PRAKASH GOTHWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Surya Prakash Gothwal, was the Peon in the Office of the Officer on Special Duty, office of the Conversion of Agricultural and, Tilaknagar, Jaipur, in Rajasthan. On September 19, 1975, a letter was served on the petitioner intimating him of taking of the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services ( Classification Control and Appeal ) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules of 1958' ). A charge-sheet and the statement of allegations were also served on the petitioner. Shri Babu Lal Mittal, S. D. O. , was appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct inquiry against the petitioner. After the inquiry, a show-cause notice was served on the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground that mis-conduct has been proved against him on all the three charges for which inquiry was conducted.

(2.) MR. Bandhu who appeared for the petitioner in this case has mainly made three fold submissions. Firstly, it is submitted that the list of witnesses and documents was not filed within 10 days as contemplated by Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. It was then argued that there has been violation of Rule 16 (10) of the Rules, in-asmuch as, even though the departmental authority and the Enquiry Officer were different persons, separate finding was not recorded on the report of the Enquiry Officer by the disciplinary authority, as would be evident from the show-cause notice. Lastly, it was submitted that the evidence of the department was closed on January 20, 1976 and on the same day, the petitioner was called upon to produce his evidence in defence. No opportunity, whatsoever, was given to him for filing the lists of witnesses and documents within 10 days as required by Rule-16 (6) (a) of the Rules of 1958. Not only that, the inquiry was again taken up on January 29, 1976 when the petitioner filed an application that copies of some of the documents have not been given to him and the same should be given. No order was passed in his presence and, lateron, as it now appears some proceedings have been fabricated having been taken on 29th and 31st of January and the evidence has been closed on 31st in the absence of the petitioner and without intimating him the date.

(3.) COMING to the second point regarding recording of the finding, Rule 16 (10) of the Rules of 1958 is as under: - "rule 16 (10) (i) : If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on the Charges is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in classes (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 should be imposed, it shall - (a) furnish to the Government servant a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority a statement of its finding together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority. "