GAJRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as an Inspector, Cooperative Societies and Supervisor of Ramgarh Minor Irrigation Works, Ramgarh (District Alwar) in the year 1971. A charge was revelled against the petitioner that in the aforesaid capacity he made false verification in respect of the respect of some equipment and accessories of pumping set etc. supplied to one Makhan Singh of village Sakhla, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar, although the articles were not actually received from the supplier in accordance with the bills. THE petitioner denied the allegation contained in the charge sheet and a disciplinary inquiry ensued THE Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, who in his report dated January 8, 1973 came to the conclusion that the charge was proved and that Makhan Singh had not received the articles in accordance with the bills from the supplier and that the petitioner made a false verification report in respect of the delivery of material in question. A notice was given to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur on March 22, 1973 to show cause as to why his two annual grade increments be not withheld After considering the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority by his order dated May 10. 1973 imposed the punishment of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner. An appeal filled by him before the State Government was rejected and hence this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel contends that the order passed by the State Government on appeal under rule 30 should be set aside because, in the first place, the provisions of rule 30 have not been complied with and secondly, the order passed by the State Government was not a speaking order. I have gone through the documents produced by the petitioner and I feel satisfied that the order passed by the State Government does not suffer from any infirmity. When the Appellate Authority agreed with the finding arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority and the inquiry officer, it is not necessary for the Appellate Authority to give elebor-ate reasons while dismissing the appeal. The State Government has come to the conclusion that it was established from the material on record that the entire goods were not delivered to Makhen Singh by the supplier firm but receipt for the full quantity of such goods as shown in the bills was given for claiming the reimbursement from the Cooperative Bank and that the petitioner was guilty of wrongly verifying the receipt of the entire articles according to the bills. The argument of learned counsel is that certain observations made by the Inquiry Officer were objected to by the petitioner as incorrect and the petitioner had stated in his reply to the show cause notice and in the memo of appeal before the State Government that such observations were not well founded. The question, however, remains that the material part of the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer, that on checking the goods were not found with Makhan Singh in accordance with the bills, although their receipt in full was duly verified by the petitioner and that the explanation furnished by the petitioner that some of the articles were returned subsequently to the supplier firm was not found proved by the evidence recorded at the inquiry, was unassailable. It cannot be held in these circumstances that the provisions of rule 80 were not followed or that the order passed by the State Government dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner was not a speaking order. It may be pointed out that a minor error here or there made by the Iquiry Officer in his report did not affect the essence of the finding recorded by him and the disciplinary proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated in the present case merely on account of the minor errors which are alleged to have crept in the report of the Inquiry Officer.