TIKMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition u/art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 11. 11. 92 Annex. 6 by which the petitioner was reverted from the post of LDC to the post of Class IV employee in Department enquiry held u/rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Con- trol & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958) be quashed.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances : (i) The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 490-840 for a period of 3 months till selected candidates are available through Rajasthan Public Service Commission from Scheduled Caste quota and he was given appointment vide order dated 19. 3. 1983 (Annex. 1) passed by the District Collector, Barmer-respondent No. 3 and in compliance of that order, the petitioner joined his duties on 21. 3. 83 in the office of Tehsildar, Shiwani, Dist. Barmer as LDC. (ii) The petitioner was served with a memorandum No. 4392 dated 24. 8. 91 along with charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and the same is Annex. 3. Thereafter Shri B. L. Sharma, Sub Divisional Officer, Balotra was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 13. 11. 91. (iii) The charge was levelled against the petitioner regarding carelessness in his work and by doing so he did loss in the Government revenue by making the registration at lower rates than the prescribed rates by the Government while he was working as registration Clerk in Tehsildar's Officer, Pachpadra. (iv) The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet dated 24. 8. 91 on 26. 8. 91 and the same is Annex. 4. (v) After conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 14. 2. 92 and same is Annex. 5 is which it was stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority i. e. respondent No. 3. The Dist. collector, Barmer vide his impugned order No. 506 dated 12. 10. 92 (Annex. 6) punished the petitioner and reverted the from the post of Lower Division Clerk to the post of Class IV and posted him in the office of Tehsildar, Chohtan.

(3.) THERE is no dispute in this case that the petitioner was initially appointed as LDC and there is also no dispute on the point that after completion of the Department Enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, the petitioner was punished and his punishment was that he was made Class IV employee from the post of LDC.