VEDPAL KRISHNA DHEER Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case was appointed as a Tehsildar in the service of the State of Rajasthan. While he was posted as a Tehsildar at Hindaun he was served with a charge sheet along with a statement of allegations by the Registrar of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, and proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') were taken against the petitioner.

(2.) One of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated August 9, 1971 in consequence of the aforesaid proceedings under R. 17 of the Rules is not a speaking order and no reasons have been assigned by the Chairman of the Board of Revenue or coming to the conclusion that the guilt of the petitioner was established. At any rate the reasons, if any, were not communicated to the petitioner. The learned counsel further contends that even an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the State Government was disposed of by a cryptic order stating that there was no substance in the appeal and no reasons were assigned even in the appellate order for the dismissal of the same.

(3.) As I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of on the ground that reasons for holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges leveled against him were not communicated to him either by the Disciplinary Authority or even by the Appellate Authority, I do not consider it necessary to deal with the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, nor it is necessary for me to enter into the details of the allegations made against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings. What has been vehemently argued before me on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of the Board of Revenue dated August 9, 1971 (Exhibit 4) states that after considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner in respect of the show cause notice and the comments of the Collector, Sikar in respect thereof and after considering the related record, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the charges were proved against the petitioner and as such four annual grade increments of the petitioner were directed to be withheld with future effect. The case set up by the petitioner was that no reasons were recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and further that no such reasons were communicated to the petitioner. In reply to the writ petition the respondents have submitted an extract copy of the note sheet of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in which the reasons were recorded by the Registrar of the Board of Revenue holding that the petitioner and another officer, Kishen Singh Shekhawat were guilty of the charges framed against them and proposed that the punishment of stoppage of four grade increments with cumulative effect be imposed upon the petitioner. The Chairman of the Board of Revenue appears to have approved of the reasons recorded by the Registrar of the Board and also the punishment proposed to be inflicted upon the petitioner. However, it is not in dispute that the reasons which were recorded by the Registrar of the Board of Revenue on the note sheet of the disciplinary proceedings were not communicated to the petitioner.