VIRENDRA KUMAR SAXENA Vs. THE URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged legality of the orders dated 5.2.91 issued by the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust. Ajmer, whereby a penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 5,583/ - was imposed on him. He has also challenged order dated 23.9.91 by which he has been dismissed from service on the order of the Chairman of the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer.

(2.) THE case set out in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as LDC in Urban Improvement Trust (for Short 'UIT'), Ajmer with effect from 20.1.75. An enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 was initiated against him, He submitted application dated 8.5.86 along with a list of documents and sought permission for inspection of those documents. According to him, the documents were not made available to him. He has not been afforded opportunity of hearing/defence. By an order dated 17.10.86 he was placed under suspension. The suspension continued till 15.3.89 when it was revoked. As a result of the disciplinary enquiry, which according to the petitioner was not held in accordance with the provisions of 1958 Rules and the principles of natural justice, the Secretary, UIT issued an order on 15.2.91 and imposed a penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 15 of 1958 Rules and raised several contentions in his memorandum of appeal. Without deciding the appeal, the appellate authority forced the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 5583/ - by making an order dated 13.8.91. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 23.9.91 has been communicated to the petitioner. This order makes a reference to the decision of the chairman of UIT, Ajmer, removing the petitioner from service.

(3.) IN reply to the petition, the Respondent have stated that serious charges were leveled against the petitioner. A regular disciplinary enquiry was held. The petitioner was afforded full opportunity of defending himself. The Respondent has stated that there has been a complete compliance of the procedure prescribed by Rule 16 of 1958 Rules. The petitioner has not been put to any prejudice. The Chairman gave an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the appeal. A copy of the order passed by the appellate authority on 16.9.91 has also been placed on record.