STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. AMOLAK CHAND SANGHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, the State of Rajasthan (appellant) questions the correctness of the order dated December 11, 1974 of the learned single Judge of this Court by which he allowed the petitioner -respondent's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashed the order Ex. 5 dated September 17, 1965 by which the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner -respondent.

(2.) SHRI Amolak Chand Sanghi who is respondent in this appeal and was petitioner in the writ petition will hereinafter be referred as the petitioner. While the petitioner was posted as an Assistant Engineer, Irrigation, Jaipur, he was served with the following charge: That the said Shri Amolak Chand Sanghi, while functioning as Assistant Engineer, Irrigation at Baran and Kalisote Project during the period from 1954 to 1959 abused his official position by authorising, making and claiming unauthorised payments through fabrication of records with a view to cheating the Government thereby causing wrongful loss thereto, as indicated in the statement of allegations. The charge was accompained by the statement of allegations. A perusal of the statement of allegations shows that the petitioner had employed one Naney Khan as a driver for his private Car No. RJL -2851, and instead of paying him from his own pocket prepared false vouchers showing that Naney Khan was employed as Chowkidar -cum -Beldar and Mistry and arranged payments of his salary from the Irrigation Department though he had never worked as Chowkidar -cum -Beldar and Mistry during the relevant period. Three vouchers were mentioned in the statement of allegations: one voucher was for the month of February 1958 by which Naney Khan was paid Rs. 45/ - second voucher was for the month of August 1958 by which Naney Khan was paid Rs. 45/ - and third voucher was for the month of December 1958 by which Naney Khan was paid Rs. 60/ -Besides that there was a further allegation that the petitioner had not undertaken a tour from Ghatti to Nahargarh on July 9, 1959 yet he had charged his T.A. The petitioner denied the charge as well as the allegations against him. The departmental enquiry was held by the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, In support of the allegations, six witnesses viz., P.W, 1 Punjilal, Circle Inspector, P.W. 2 Gopal Lal, Retired Overseer, P.W. 3 Naney Khan, P.W, 4 Surendra Khan, Assistant Engineer, P.W. 5 Ram Kishan Sarpanch of Nahargarh and P.W. 6 Jairam Dass, Chemist Ramganj Mandi were examined. In defence, the petitioner examined Kailash Pd. Sharma, U D C. in the Office of the Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Works, Bundi, who had worked as L.D.C. in the Office of Assistant Engineer, Kalisote Sub -Divisional Office in July 1952. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report Ex. 6 dated September 26, 1964. He recorded the following findings: 1. Point No. 1; that Naney Khan did not do any Government work during the months of February and March, 1958 and his salary was wrongfully drawn and paid to him by the petitioner in collusion with Gopal Lal, Overseer and that it is just possible that he may have arranged this payment by way of reward of gift to him or he may have paid his salary for two months by deducting Rs. 90/ - which were paid from Government funds. Point No. 2: that Naney Khan was a private servant of the petitioner for the months of February, March and December, 1958 and that he arranged drawal of Rs. 150/ - from Government funds by preparing false records. Point No. 3: that it has not been proved that the petitioner charged T.A. for the journey from Ghatti to Nahargarth and back on July 9, 1959 when he actually did not perform this journey.

(3.) THE State of Rajasthan contested the writ petition. It was refuted that the enquiry was in violation of the principles of natural justice or that it was against the Rules. It was submitted that it was not necessary to have supplied the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner under the Rules as only minor penalty of stoppage of two grade increments was imposed upon the petitioner. It was pleaded that there was evidence in support of the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which was accepted by the Govern -and, therefore, under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court should not go into the question of finding of fact. The learned single Judge by the impugned order dated December 11, 1974 held that the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer was based on no legal evidence or at any rate the conclusion recorded by him was such which could not have been reached by a reasonable person, on the basis of the material that was on record. In view of this, he did not examine the other contentions. He allowed the write petition and quashed the order Ex. 5 and directed that effect should not be given to it. Aggrieved, the State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal as aforesaid.