SATYA NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was working as an Assistant Inspector of Co -operative Societies at Bikaner, was served with a memorandum, charge -cheet and statement of allegations by the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Rajasthan. After the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence in respect of the aforesaid charges' the Di0sciplinary Authority considered it necessary to make an enquiry and appointed the Deputy Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Bikaner, as the Enquiry Officer. The Deputy Registrar, Co operative Societies conducted an enquiry against the petitioner and submitted hit report by which he found the petitioner guilty of part of charge No. 1 part of charge No. 3 and of charges Nos. 4 and 5, while the petitioner was exonerated of the remaining charges. One of the charges of which the petitioner was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer was that he retained a sum of Rs. 300/ - belonging to Jhunjhunu Multipurpose Co -operative Society for a long time and it was only after the Assistant Registrar directed him to (sic) the aforesaid amount that the petitioner deposited the said sum of Rs. 300/ - with Rs. 3/ - as interest, on January 3, 1970. This finding was based on the admission of the petitioner made in his letter dated January 3, 1970 written to the Assistant Registrar. After receiving the report of the Enquiry Officer the Registrar, Co -operative Societies served a show cause notice upon the petitioner proposing a penalty of dismissal from service, which would be a disqualification for future employment The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and after considering the same the Registrar, Co -operative Societies by his order dated March 7, 1972 directed the dismissal of the petitioner from service. An appeal by the petitioner to the State Government was also rejected. The petitioner has thereafter filed this writ petition chal enging the aforesaid order awarding him a punishment of dismissal from service.

(2.) THE first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that by his application dated April 20, 1971 the petitioner asked for supply of copies of his statement and those of three other witnesses, but his grievance is that the requisite copies were not supplied to him. It may be mentioned here in this respect that the application for copies is said to have been submitted by the petitioner on April 20, 1971 and at the time although he enquiry had been concluded the enquiry report had not been submitted The enquiry report was submitted on May 2, 1971 as mentioned in para 10 of the writ petition and the show cause notice was given to the petitioner on December 6, 1971. The petitioner did not make any request for the supply of the afore aid copies after the show cause notice was served upon him, nor he made any complaint in respect of the alleged non -supply of copies of such statements either in his reply to the show cause notice or in the memo of appeal filed by him. In case a prejudice would have been caused to the petitioner on account of the non -supply of the aforesaid copies to him, then the question should have been raised by him in his reply to the show cause notice as well in his memo of appeal. In these circum tances. it cannot be held that any prejudice was at all caused to the petitioner on account of the alleged failure to supply the requisite copies. Moreover, as this question was no agitated by the petitioner either before the Disciplinary Authority or before the Appellate Authority, it cannot the allowed to be raised for the first time in these proceedings for a writ of certiorari. Learned Counsel relied upon. The Board of Revenue (Taxes), Kerala State and Anr. v. S. Parasuiama Iyer 1969 SLR 299 in support of his contention that the petitioner was prejudiced and a reasonable opportunity to show cause was not afforded to him on account of the non supply of the copies of the depositions' but in the aforesaid case the objection in that respect was clearly taken before the Appellate Authority and, therefore, the same was entertained in writ proceedings as well.

(3.) THE third Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not afforded a personal learning by the Disciplinary Authority, although in the slow cause (sic) was mentioned that in case the petitioner desired to get appraisal hearing he should inform the Disciplinary Authority in respect thereof In his reply to the show cause notice, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ex. 9, the petitioner after submitting his explanation in detail also stated that from the reply the Disciplinary Authority would be satisfied about the innocence of the petitioner and that in case any further explain in was require then an opportunity of personal hearing be afforded by the petitioner. Thus the petitioner desired an opportunity of personal hearing only in case any further explanation was required from him. As the Disciplinary Authority did not require any further explanation from the petitioner, no personal hearing was afforded to him. Thus there was no illegality in the matter as the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice was fully considered by the Disciplinary Authority while passing its order of punishment dated March 7, 1972. The Request of the petitioner for personal hearing was a qualified one and in the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be held that any Breech of either the statutory rules or the principles of natural justice (sic) the Disciplinary Authority in this case.