RAMSHAI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 impugning the order of dismissal dated 1 -7 -68 passed by the Collector, Jaipur respondent No. 2 as affirmed by the Board of Revenue respondent No. 1 by its order dated 20 -8 -71.

(2.) On 28 -11 -68 the petitioner was served with 9 charges on which it was proposed to hold an inquiry against him The inquiry was thereafter held in accordance with the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, (hereinafter to be called "the Rules"). An inquiry was held into them by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Inquiry Officer by his order held all the charges not proved except Charges 2 and 3 which he held to have established. The Collector thereupon on 21 -9 -61 passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner. An appeal was taken before the Board of Revenue which was allowed on 14 -5 -62 and the order of Collector was set aside and the case was remitted back to him for further inquiry in accordance with law. The matter having come back, the Collector entrusted the inquiry to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Jaipur who by his report dated 20 -9 -67 found that no charges have been proved against the petitioner. A show cause was thereafter issued to the petitioner by the Collector dated 23 -1 -68 in which it was stated that it was proposed to dismiss him from service. The petitioner showed cause and was also heard in person and thereafter the Collector by his order dated 16 -7 -68 dismissed the petitioner holding that charges 2 to 9 have not been proved but that charge No. 1 was found established which was a serious one. He also referred to the previous service record of the petitioner and took the view that the past record also showed that here were no circumstances for taking a lenient view and therefore be directed petitioner's dismissal. An appeal against the order was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 20 -8 -71 and the petitioner being aggrieved has come to this Court.

(3.) The first grievance of Mr. Lodha, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of dismissal is vitiated because of the non -compliance with the rules. It will be seen that the Inquiry Officer had by his report dated 20 -9 -67 found that none of the 9 charges have been proved against the petitioner Rule 16(10) of the Rules provide that if the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on the charges is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vi) of rule 14 should be imposed, it shall furnish to the Government servant with a copy. Rule 16(10) runs as under: - -