STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH THE REVENUE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR Vs. GANPAT RAM SON OF SHRI RAJU RAM CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF 5/C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arising from order dated 12.08.2015 allowing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.664 of 2003 is barred by delay of 270 days. The Learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination dated 10.08.1999 as affirmed in appeal dated 08.04.2002 primarily on the ground that the departmental proceedings had not been held in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules').

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Respondent was a Patwari. He submitted incorrect reports with regard to forest lands, small patch lands leading to illegal allotments causing unlawful gain by abuse of power and corresponding loss to the Government. The Respondent had admitted the charges. Any procedural irregularity in conduct of the departmental proceedings was therefore not relevant as no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the Respondent. Admitted charges need not to be proved. The Respondent never filed his reply to the charges. His statement was recorded on 11.06.1998. The Disciplinary Authority after full application of mind had concurred with the enquiry report. Due opportunity of appeal has also been availed. The fact that each of the reports which formed a charge may have also been the subject matter of challenge by the State before the Commissioner and in appeal before the Board of Revenue unsuccessfully is not relevant so long as the reports were wrong and have been acknowledged by the Respondent to have been prepared and signed by him. The Respondent had been subjected to more than one departmental proceeding which reflects his habit of indiscipline.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that he never admitted the charges but only his signatures upon the reports. The finding of the Learned Single Judge that there never was a departmental proceeding held in accordance with law calls for no interference. The punishment therefore stands vitiated. If the very orders which were subject matter of the charges were tested for their correctness, legality and validity at the behest of the State before the Commissioner and in appeal before the Board of Revenue who in exercise of statutory powers upheld their validity the charges themselves were non-est.