MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while he was employed as Lower Division Clerk in the office of Officer Commanding, 1 Rajasthan Naval Unit N.C.C., Udaipur was served with a memorandum dated 21st May, 1975 along with charge, sheet and statement of allegations for holding an inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.C.A Rules'). The parties are not at dispute that in the first instance, the inquiry report was submitted by the Board of Inquiry constituted for the purpose, exonerating the petitioner for all the charges. The petitioner was communicated vide order dated 8th November, 1975 that a Board of Inquiry consisting of Captain V.S. Bains, Mr. J.J. Kumar-MCPO-I1 and Mr. D.C. Ganchha--L.D.C., has been constituted for holding an inquiry against him. The date and time was to be notified by the Presiding Officer of the Board, who was stated to be Captain V.S. Bains. The order is Ex. 14 on record. Vide yet another V communication dated 14th November, 1975 (Ex. 15), the petitioner was informed that the said Board of Inquiry will hold a "fresh inquiry ", on the findings of the Inquiry Officer of the Disciplinary proceedings held against him on 30th July and 31st July, 1975. The petitioner raised an objection to the holding of fresh inquiry, vide application Annex. 17 dated 17th November, 1975 and invited the attention of the respondents that after once holding an inquiry the proceedings should be finalised only under Rule 16(9) of the C.C.A. Rules. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 17th November, 1975 that Rule 16(9) of the CCA. Rules permits holding of fresh inquiry and, therefore, he is required to present himself for fresh inquiry. The letter dated 17th November, 1975 is Annex. 18 on record. The petitioner also raised an objection as to the constitution of the Board of Inquiry, which included name of Shri D.C. Ganchha--L.D.C on the ground that he is a person junior to him in service and he cannot be subjected to face an inquiry by a person junior to him, to which he was replied that Mr. D.C. Gunchha will only act as a "writer" and not as "member" of the Board, vide Annex. 20 dated 19th November, 1975. The Presiding Officer of the Board of Inquiry then intimated to the petitioner that Board is going to inquire into the additional charges, to which the petitioner replied that since competent authority to impose charges has not informed the petitioner about the additional charges and appointing Shri (Capt.) V.S. Bains as Inquiry Officer for going into additional charges, he cannot be called upon by him to subject himself (petitioner) to the inquiry in respect of additional charges and unless he receives orders from the. competent authority, he will not participate in the inquiry in respect of additional charges. No further information was given to the petitioner. However, thereafter he was served with a show cause notice dated 19lh December, 1975 by which the petitioner was informed that the record of inquiry has been submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and after careful consideration of the same, the Governor has decided that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. Alongwith the notice Annex. 25 dated 19th December, 1975, the petitioner was served with copies of proceedings of the inquiry as well as findings of the Board of Inquiry. From that report, the petitioner came to know for the first time that since 20th November, 1975 one Shri Assumal Sanwalani had been participating in proceedings as Member of the Board of Inquiry. No order of appointing Mr. Sanwalani as member of the Board was ever communicated to the. petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner made a representation against the show cause notice Annex. 25. Vide order dated 21st January, 1976 (Annex. 28), the Disciplinary Authority ordered imposing punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. The order of removal was followed by an office order dated 3rd February, 1976 (Annex. 29). Vide order Annex. 29 it was also stated that the petitioner was allowed subsistence allowance and, from 4th November, 1975 till 20th January, 1976, the. pay and allowances other than subsistence allowance shall be forfeited.

(3.) The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of removal, on 11/17th March, 1976. The appeal was not decided for considerable period and the petitioner had to give a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. for getting his appeal decided. After service of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 2nd January, 1978 that his appeal has been rejected by the Director, N.C.C. (Rajasthan), Jaipur, which is placed on record as Annex. 35. The petitioner made a Second Appeal in the first instance vide Annex. 36, on being informed that no Second Appeal lay, he filed a Review Petition, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annex. 37. The petitioner's Review Petition was decided vide order dated 13th March, 1981 (Annex. 39). The Review Petition was partly allowed by ordering that penalty of removal from service on the petitioner imposed vide order No. 314/A/NCC dated 21st January, 1976 by the Commanding Officer, No. 1 Raj. N.C.C. is reduced to withholding of three grade increments with cumulative effect and accordingly he was reinstated with effect from the date of rejoining. It was further held that the petitioner will not be paid any salary from the date of removal from service to the date he rejoins. The period was treated as "dies-none".