AMRITLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal under s. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance has been filed by Amritlal, who was the petitioner in the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, against the order of the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the petition by his order dated August 30, 1971. The petitioner had prayed in the writ petition that the order, (Ex. 6) dated. April 18, 1969, by which he was dismissed from service and the order (Ex. 7) dated May 4, 1971, by which his appeal against that order was dismissed, may be quashed and that he may be re -instated with all emoluments and benefits arising out of it. The writ petition was filed on July 5, 1971.

(2.) THE petitioner -appellant at the relevant time was working as substantive Compositor (Gr. 1) in the Government Press, Jodhpur. The memo, charge sheet and the statement of allegations are Ex. 3, 4 and 5 respectively. The charge against the petitioner was that he travelled by railway on government business in Class 111 from Jodhpur to Jaipur on June 4, 1968, but fraudulently drew travelling allowance for class II and thereby defrauded the Government. The case of the petitioner is that because of his taking part in various Trade Union activities, he was suspended and an enquiry was initiated. The memo with statement of charges and aJ'egations has been filed marked as Ex. 1, and at the time of filing of the writ petition that enquiry was pending. Subsequently, during the period of suspension, another memorandum (Ex. 3), charges (Ex. 4) and statement of allegations (Ex. 5) were served and in exercise of the powers under r. 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 (for short 'the rules' here in), the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect by the Director, Printing and Stationery Department ('the Director' herein after) Rajasthan (respondent No. 2). Shri ChhajuRam, the then Superintendent of the Government Press, Jodhpur, was appointed Enquiry Officer on February 10, 1969 for conducting enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on February 21, 1969. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Director issued the order (Ex. 6) dated April 18, 1969 dismissing the petitioner from service. An appeal was filed by him, which was dismissed by the order (Ex. 7) dated May 4, 1971. The orders (Exs. 6 and 7) were Challenged by filing the writ petition under Arts 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on August 30, 1971 summarily. The petitioner -appellant has filed this appeal against that order.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. M. Mridul for the appellant and Mr. H.N. Calla, Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents.