VIRENDRA KUMAR SAXENA Vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as L.D.C. with the Urban Improvement Trust Department, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the UTT). He was issued a charge sheet under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 3.5.1986 (hereinafter referred to as the CCA Rules) for major punishment. He was also placed under suspension on 17.10.1986 vide Annexure 6 which suspension order was revoked vide Annexure 7 dated 15.3.1989. It is stated that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner on the charges as mentioned in the charge sheet with the Police Station, Christiangan), Ajmer. However, for the reasons that no record had been made available to the police officer, the FIR itself was dropped as per order Annexure 8 passed by learned District Judge, Ajmer.

(2.) The charge sheet Annexure 1 was proceeded in disciplinary proceedings and as many as six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. An objection is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witness objection Chand Sharma was only the person who is said to have supported the inquiry by producing evidence in another inquiry which had been conducted by him and which inquiry had become the part of the present disciplinary inquiry. It is also stated that even thou, he had asked for the report submitted by Mr. Mahesh Chand Sharma, neither the report was given to the petitioner nor the statement. The petitioner had given his defence statemeht.

(3.) The Inquiry Officer had found the petitioner guilty and on the report of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner was punished with stoppage of three Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect vide order Annexure 17 dated 15.2.1991. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the order Annexure 17 before the Appellate Authority and one of the grounds apart from other grounds as put forward by him was that the copy of the inquiry report had not been supplied to him and therefore, he had been denied the opportunity of pleading his case. The Appellate Authority instead of deciding the appeal of the petitioner had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Rules on 13.8.1991 to the petitioner to deposit the amount involved in the charge sheet i.e. Rs. 5,583/- (Annexure 19-A) which amount was deposited by the petitioner under protest.