ARJUN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by means of this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order of his dismissal dated 5. 3. 84 (Annx. 8) passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department, Drilling & Hand Pump Division, Udaipur (Respondent No. 2 ).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case in nutshell can be recapitulated are that the petitioner was appointed as a Helper on work-charge basis on 26. 3. 1981 and since then he was continuing on the post of Chowkidar-cum-Helper in the department of Public Health and Engineering Department.

(3.) RESPONDENTS No. l and 2 have filed counter affidavit alleging in paragraphs (b) and (c) before giving parawise reply to the writ petition that the Executive Engineer, Drilling & Hand Pump Division, Public Health and Engineering Department, Udaipur issued letter No. 1271 dated 9. 6. 83 appointing Shri R. D. Gupta, Assistant Engineer, Drilling & Hand Pump Sub Division-I, Public Health & Engineering Department, Udaipur to submit preliminary enquiry report about the incident and in compliance of the said order of respondent No. 2, Shri R. D. Gupta conducted the preliminary enquiry and recorded the statements of Shri Fateh Singh, Shri Heera Lal, Shri Ashok Kumar, Shri Umesh Chandra and Shri S. K. Verma. The preliminary enquiry report was submitted by Shri R. D. Gupta to respondent No. 2 on 13. 9. 83 who after being satisfied with the ex parte preliminary submitted by Shri R. D. Gupta, Assistant Engineer, Drilling & Hand Pump Sub-Division-I, PHED, Udaipur, placed the petitioner under suspension on 24. 9. 83 and charge-sheet dated 27. 9. 83 (Annex. 1) was served to the petitioner. Annex. 2 to the writ petition reveals that after service of the charge sheet to the petitioner he moved an application demanding copies of the statement of witnesses whose statements were recorded behind his back during preliminary enquiry and disclosure of their names and addresses along with the copy of the preliminary report for filing an effective explanation. The petitioner also demanded various other documents which were not relevant to decide the controversy.