KHET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality of the charge -sheet dated 26.5.1987 (Annex.2), the order Annexure -17 dated 29.9.1989 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner and the order Annex. 22 dated 23.3.1998, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order Annexure -17 dated 29.9.1989 passed by the Disciplinary Authority was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) FACTS in brief are that the petitioner was served with a charge -sheet Annexure -2 dated 26.5.1987/16.6.1987 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the C.C.A. Rules). Vide order dated 26.5.1987 Executive Engineer, Sub -Division, Baran was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. When the petitioner received the charge sheet, he realized that he had not been supplied with statement/memorandum of allegations and certain of the relied upon documents. Thereupon he submitted a representation Annex. 4 dated 26.6.1987 to the Disciplinary Authority praying for being provided with a copy of the statement of allegations and the other relevant documents so that he could defend himself in the inquiry proceedings. The prayer so made by the petitioner was not responded to, upon which, he submitted yet another representation Annexure 5 dated 8.7.1987, praying for being supplied with the relevant documents and the statement of allegations. The desired documents and the statement of allegations were not supplied to the petitioner despite numerous requests and reminders. The Executive Engineer, PHED Ajmer wrote a warning letter Annex. 12 dated 28.9.1988 to respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4, the Inquiry Officer to supply the statement of allegations to the petitioner. The language of the letter Annexure -12 has a material bearing on the controversy at hand and the relevant portion thereof is quoted herein below for the sake of convenience: -

(3.) FROM a bare look at the aforesaid communication, it is abundantly clear that when the charge sheet was furnished to the petitioner, the same was not accompanied with the statement of allegations. The document was supplied to him after the issuance of the warning letter Annexure -12. However, significantly, by the time the statement of allegations were supplied to the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer had concluded the inquiry and the inquiry report had already been submitted for consideration before the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority gave a notice of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said notice and claimed exoneration. The Disciplinary Authority however did not accept the explanation and passed the order Annexure -17 dated 29.9.1989, directing removal of the petitioner from service. Relevant extracts from the Disciplinary Authority's order Annexure -17 are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience: -