JAI SINGH NIRWAN Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing instant writ petition, petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of penalty order dtd. 1/9/2000, whereby penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner has further challenged order dtd. 11/10/2001, whereby review petition filed by the petitioner against aforesaid penalty order dtd. 1/9/2000 has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Instructor (Filler) on 11/11/1976 and was later on promoted on the post of Superintendent/Vice Principal in the year 1992. The petitioner was served with charge dtd. 6/5/1997 sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to referred as'the Rules of 1958') containing charges regarding committing forgery and embezzlement in purchase and issue of certain office articles. Petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet on 27/7/1997 denying all the charges levelled against him. However, considering reply to the charge sheet submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority instead of dropping the proceedings at that stage itself, appointed enquiry officer to conduct enquiry. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry in a slipshod manner without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and submitted enquiry report on 3/7/1999. Thereafter, the petitioner was afforded opportunity to submit representation against the findings of enquiry officer by issuing notice dtd. 16/7/199. The petitioner availed opportunity and submitted representation in order to point out material flaw and defects in the enquiry, yet without considering the same, in quite mechanical manner, the disciplinary authority passed penalty order dtd. 1/9/2000, whereby penalty of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, which is a major penalty, has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner also preferred review petition before His Excellency, The Governor of Rajasthan for reviewing and recalling the matter and to quash the penalty order, yet he remained unsuccessful, as review petition was rejected vide order dtd. 11/10/2001.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a joint enquiry was conducted against the petitioner as well as two other persons, namely, Kailashnath Mathur and Amraram Dayal. It is submitted that the work of purchase and issue of orders with regard to purchase was not of the petitioner and such work was conducted by Kailashnath Mathur, Instructor, Commercial Workshop, Calculation and Amraram Dayal, LDC. It was also submitted that the person involved in the matter has also deposited the amount of alleged embezzlement, therefore, under these circumstances, only for the reasons that the entries were verified by the petitioner, imposing major penalty upon the petitioner is totally unjustified whereas other two persons involved in the matter were penalised with minor penalties.