BALWAN SINGH PUNIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 5. 2. 92 with a prayer that the order dated 28. 10. 91 (Annex. 4) passed by the Director, Sanskrit Education, Jaipur imposing the penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect as also the recovery of the amount of advance as a measure of penalty be quashed and the petitioner be exonerated of the charges levelled against him.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: (i) The petitioner was appointed as a teacher on 3. 9. 86 by the Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan Jaipur and was posted at Ratangarh in Government Upper Primary School, Ratangarh and thereafter in July, 1987 he was transferred to the Government Upper Primary Sanskrit School, Bebar (Churu ). (ii) While posted at Ratangarh, the petitioner was served with a memorandum along with a charge-sheet and statement of allegations on 13. 2. 1987. The first charge related to indiscipline and the second charge related to beating with the head- master and 3rd charge related to misuse of funds of the School. Thus, the petitioner was facing enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereafter referred to as the Rules of 1958 ). (iii) The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge- sheet before the Enquiry Officer who was Dy. Director, Sanskrit Education (Dota Division), Jaipur. IT has been averred by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer did not hold enquiry in legal and fair manner and according to the Rules and he did not afford proper and adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and copy of enquiry report was not served on him. (iv) The Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur who was the Disciplinary Authority in the case of the petitioner on the receipt of report of the enquiry did not hear the petitioner nor he was given copy of enquiry report nor afforded him any opportunity to make representation against the enquiry report and by a cryptic and two lines order dated 28. 10. 1991 (Annex. 4) penalty was imposed on the petitioner as stated above. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) I have perused the impugned order dated 28. 10. 91 (Annex. 4) and from perusing the same, it appears that the petitioner faced enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and three charges were levelled against him as mentioned in the charge-sheet (Annex. 2) and thereafter enquiry officer was appointed. In the order dated 28. 10. 1991 (Annex. 4), it is written that on the basis of report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, respondent No. 2 had come to the conclusion that the petitioner did not lead any evidence to defend the charges levelled against him and thus, the petitioner was not in a position to prove his innocence and, therefore, he was found guilty and accordingly punishment was imposed on him as stated above.