CHIDDA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In assailing legality of the order dated 4.4.79 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies Rajasthan, Jaipur dismissing him from service, the petitioner has raised several grounds in the writ petition but in my opinion it is not necessary to make detailed reference of various contentions raised in the writ petition because the writ petition can be disposed of on a short ground that the impugned order suffers from violation of the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice.

(2.) The petitioner, who was at the relevant time holding the post of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, was placed under suspension by an order dated 5.10.72. This was preceded by a memo dated 4.10.72 issued by the Government in Department of Personnel whereby a departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 was proposed against the petitioner. In all two charges were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply and denied the allegations levelled against him. The Government then referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries for holding inquiry against the petitioner. After making inquiry the Deputy Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries submitted a report to the Government. By that time the petitioner had been reverted from the post of Assistant Registrar to that of Inspector (Executive), Cooperative Societies and, therefore, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies considered the report of Inquiry Officer and issued a show cause notice dated 17.4.76 proposing a penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner. Copy of the inquiry report was enclosed with the notice dated 17.4.76. After the petitioner had submitted his reply, the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies passed an order dated 30.7.76 and dismissed the petitioner from service. On an appeal filed by the petitioner the Government came to the conclusion that the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies had no authority to impose penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. On that basis the Government remanded the matter to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for taking a fresh decision. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies again issued a notice dated 15.11.78 proposing penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply running into 23 typed sheets. On 4.4.79 the Registrar, Cooperative Societies issued the impugned order of punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service.

(3.) Petitioner has pleaded that the disciplinary authority as well as the inquiry officer have acted in contravention of the provisions of Rule 16. His case is that even before submitting reply to the memo, the petitioner had made applications for supply of copies of the relevant documents and the Government did issue a direction for supply of copy of some of the documents and inspection of the remaining documents. However, neither the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, nor the inquiry officer supplied him with the copies of documents. The inquiry officer had not summoned the witnesses to whom he had named in the list of witnesses submitted for his defence. It is also the case of petitioner that the disciplinary authority namely, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has not complied with the mandatory requirements of Rules 16(9), 16(10) and 16(12) of 1958 Rules either at the time of issue of show cause notice or at the time of passing of the final order of punishment. The petitioner has pleaded that his reversion from the post of Assistant Registrar to the post of Inspector during the pendency of inquiry, is illegal. He bas contended that the Departmental Promotion Committee which considered his candidature for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, made recommendations adverse to the petitioner only on the basis of the charges levelled against him in the departmental inquiry. No other material was available with the Departmental Promotion Committee to adjudge him unsuitable for the purpose of promotion. The petitioner's case is that instead of passing an order of reversion, the government ought to have resorted to the sealed cover procedure.