HANUMANA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination dated 10-6-1991 and the appellate order dated 3-1-1992. A memorandum of charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was served stating that earlier the services were terminated on 31-3-1983 and he was taken back on 21-12-1986 and he was absent for 464 days in 12 years and punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed and that a false complaint was made against the higher officers namely Mohan Singh. In 8 years' service he was absent for 40 days. He was blackmailing the higher officers.

(2.) Application dated 9-4-1990 was submitted for giving certified copies of the documents mentioned therein with submission that the name of defence counsel would be given along with the final reply. By letter dated 20-4-1990 he was allowed to inspect the record. He again informed on 25-4-1990 that the attendance register from 1983 to 1989 have not been shown. The reply dated 12-6-1991 was ultimately submitted. In the meantime the Inquiry Officer was appointed on 20-4-1990 and the petitioner requested that 15 days' time may be given for appointment of defence counsel as per his letter dated 25-5-1990. Representation dated 20-9-1990 was submitted that due to influence of Mohan Singh, RI, defence counsel the petitioner wants to appoint another defence counsel. Ultimately by order dated 12-6-1991 the punishment of dismissal from service was given by the disciplinary authority.

(3.) The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order is non-speaking and the petitioner was not given the opportunity to appoint the defence counsel and that neither the certified copies were given nor the petitioner was allowed to inspect the documents completely and the punishment which has already been inflicted has been taken into consideration which has resulted in double jeopardy. The decision in respect of each of the charges have not been given. Even the registers in which the absence is alleged has not been produced. The copy of the witnesses statement was not provided nor they were allowed to be cross-examined and similarly the appellate authority has not considered all the objections raised and therefore, the order is also liable to be quashed.