RADHA MOHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts arising out of this rather lengthy writ petition may be stated shortly.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as a Lower division Clerk in the State Insurance Department of the State of Rajasthan and at the relevant time he was posted as an Insurance Assistant in the aforesaid Department with his headquarters at Ajmer. On August 13, 1969 the petitioner was directed to proceed to Bhilwara as a relieving hand On the next day, the petitioner reported himself for duty at Bhilwara, but he was told there that the clerk of that office who had gone earlier on leave had already re-joined his duties and as such the petitioner was asked to go back to Ajmer. THE petitioner claimed three days' allowance for his going to Bhilwara and the return journey A preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the Deputy Director of the State Insurance Department and it was found that the petitioner had claimed excessive daily allowance. THEreupon a charge sheet along with a statement of allegations was served upon the petitioner on January 9, 1970 THE charges were framed against the petitioner, of which one was that he claimed excessive daily allowance in respect of the trip to Bhilwara in August 1969 and the other was that he did not comply with the directions of the Inspector of the State Insurance Department and went on leave on false pretexts. THE Deputy Director, State Insurance Department, who was the disciplinary authority of the petitioner himself conducted the enquiry. After holding an enquiry, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that both the charges were proved against the petitioner. He, therefore, decided that a penalty of with-holding two grade increments with cumulative effect be imposed upon the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid order passed by the disciplinary authority a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on April 10, 1970 which was wholly unnecessary as only a minor punishment was thereby going to be inflicted upon him. After receiving the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority passed an order on May 1, 1970, imposing the punishment of with holding two grade increments payable to the petitioner with cumulative effect. An appeal in the matter to the Director of Insurance was unsuccessful and a review petition to the Governor of the State was also rejected. Hence this writ petition has been filed in this Court.

(3.) YET another submission was made by the learned counsel that copies of the statements of witnesses recorded during the preliminary enquiry were not supplied to the petitioner inspite of demand The reply of the respondents in this respect is two fold. In the first instance, they submit that no statement of any witness was recorded during the preliminary enquiry or investigation and in the second place it has been urged that no application for supplying copies of such statements was received by the disciplinary authority. As the disciplinary authority has also given an affidavit in this respect, there is no reason not to accept the same.