R C JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department, was charge-sheeted on 15. 12. 1983 on the allegations mentioned in Annexure-1. An Enquiry Officer was appointed vide Annexure-6. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 16. 11. 1987. THE Enquiry report was submitted on 16. 10. 1987. THE petitioner was punished with stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect on 21. 9. 1988, copy of which is attached as Annexure-7. For the reason that the enquiry report was not given to the petitioner, he had applied for supply of the report on 24. 1. 1989 which was made available to him on 23. 8. 1989, copy of which is attached as Annexure-8. From the enquiry report it was revealed that none of the charge had been proved and he had been totally exonerated.

(2.) IT is also submitted that initially on the same allegations, enquiry was proposed against Shri O. P. Yadav Executive Engineer but enquiry against him was dropped by Annexure-9 on 29. 3. 1989. The petitioner is challenging the order Annexure-7. Challenge is made on the following grounds; (1) that the enquiry ought to have been initiated by the Chief Engineer who is appointing authority/head of Department and no enquiry was initiated by the disciplinary authority, rather it was initiated by the appellate authority i. e. the respondent State; (2) that none of the charge had been proved as per enquiry report Annexure-8 and the petitioner had been exonerated and in case the competent authority wanted to dis-agree with the finding of the enquiry officer, it was mandatory for him to give a note of disagreement which has not been given; (3) that on similar charges as against the petitioner, an enquiry of Shri O. P. Yadav, Executive Engineer had been dropped.

(3.) THE petitioner is governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 and relies on Rule 16 (9) and (12) which read as under:- `16 (9)- THE Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge. THE Disciplinary Authority may while considering the report of the Enquiring Authority for just and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing remand the case for further/denovo enquiry, in case it has reason to believe that the enquiry already conducted has been laconic in some respect or the other. ' 16 (12)-Orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority shall be communicated to the Government servant who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a statement of its findings together with brief reasons of disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, unless they have already been supplied to him, and also a copy of the advice, if any, given by the Commission and, where the Disciplinary Authority has not accepted the advice of the Commission, a brief statement of the reasons for such non- acceptance. It will, however, not be necessary to furnish a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer in the case where any of penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iii) of rule 14 is imposed on the Government servant. '