MURLIDHAR MAHARIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has died during the pendency of this petition and the legal representatives have been brought on record in this case.

(2.) THE petitioner was an Audit Inspector in the Cooperative Department. On 15. 6. 1977 he proceeded on leave for one day. As averred in the petition his condition deteriorated. On 17. 6. 1977 a neighbour was requested to take his application but he could not carry it and instead a phonogram was sent on 18. 6. 1977. THE petitioner received a letter on 20. 6. 1977 that his leave has been refused and he should proceed to Raisinghnagar to audit the accounts there. THE petitioner did not carry out this direction and applied for leave by telegram. On 21. 6. 1977 a registered letter was sent to the petitioner which he refused to receive but received when the same letter was sent him in open manner. On 4. 7. 1977 the petitioner moved an application on the desired form for grant of leave from 15. 6. 1977 to 3. 7. 1977. This was accompanied by a medical certificate. It is also said that the special Auditor , Sri Ganganagar had also written to the Regional Auditor, Bikaner for grant of leave to the petitioner. On 12. 8. 1977 when the Regional Auditor visited Sri Ganganagar he directed the Special Auditor to serve a charge sheet upon the petitioner and, Serve a charge-sheet upon the petitioner, thus a charge-sheet was drawn up and on 6. 10. 1978 the Chief Auditor, Cooperative Societies , Rajasthan , Jaipur informed the petitioner that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules of 1958') on four charges enumerated in the Statement of Charges. THE petitioner put in his reply on 14. 02. 1979 (Annex. 2 ). THE Regional Auditor was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, who on 24. 11. 1979 intimated to the petitioner that the enquiry shall be held on 3. 12. 1979. THE petitioner came to know that the Presenting Officer is not going to attend the enquiry, therefore, he too did not go and thereafter the date of enquiry was fixed as 10. 1. 1980. By this time the period of enquiry had come to an end and petitioner did not go to attend the same. Another letter was received by the petitioner but since fresh order extending the term had not been made the petitioner did not attend the enquiry and it was on 6. 2. 1980 that the period of enquiry was further extended. THE petitioner was informed that the enquiry shall be held on 6. 7. 1980 but on this date the petitioner's wife fell ill and he could not attend the enquiry. Vide communication dated 14. 7. 1980 the petitioner was intimated that the enquiry is proposed to be held on 19. 7. 1980 and since there was a strike of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation the petitioner had no means to reach the place of enquiry and the petitioner was informed that the Enquiry Officer had submitted the report and a tentative conclusion had been arrived at to remove the petitioner from services. Before doing that an opportunity by way of show cause notice is given to the petitioner to show cause why this should not be done. THE show-cause notice and the enquiry report are Annexs. 3 and 4 on the record. A reply was placed on 20. 12. 1980 to show-cause notice which is Annex. 5 on the record. After hearing the petitioner on 13. 1. 81 the order dated 26. 3. 81 was served upon the petitioner before imposing the punishment of removal from service. Another order was passed that the petitioner shall not be paid salary for the period of suspension beyond what has been paid to him as subsistence allowance. This order is Annex. 6. Aggrieved against the order Annex. 6 an appeal was preferred under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 and vide the order Annex. 8 dated 19. 2. 83 the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) IN fact, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has reiterated the points taken in the reply and high lighted the conduct of the petitioner in deliberately avoiding to receive the letters, not making a proper application for leave, disobeying the orders by not joining for the audit and non-cooperation on the side of the petitioner and his conduct during the enquiry.