MALKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was initially appointed as Patwari in December 1967 had been issued a charge-sheet purporting to be under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 by the Collector on 8. 5. 1985 vide Annexure-1. As many as 10 allegations of mis- appropria- tion were levelled against the petitioner. Even though it is stated by the petitioner that the complete record was not allowed to be inspected, but this aspect has been denied by the respondents in the written statement. THE Assistant Collector, Veir was appointed as Inquiry Officer. However, vide order dated 17. 2. 1987, copy of which has been attached as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the Inquiry Officer was changed and instead of Assistant Collector, Veir Assistant Collector, Bayana was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who proceeded with the inquiry and had submitted an exparte report. THE petitioner was called for personal hearing vide Annx-4 dated 4. 9. 1988. Vide Annx-6 while passing a very detailed order the District Collector removed the petitioner from service. THE statutory appeal against the order of removal was also rejected vide Annx-7 on 9. 7. 1990 by Shri I. C. Srivastava, Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, so was the revision petition dismissed on 15. 6. 1993 by Annx-8. THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order Annexures 6, 7 and 8.

(2.) IT is stated in the written statement that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of inspecting the documents and, therefore, this argument of the petitioner has no substance. In regard to non-supply of the report of the inquiry aga- inst the petitioner, it has not been stated by the petitioner that he had asked for the report of the inquiry at any time nor it is stated as to how non-supply of the inquiry report has prejudiced him. IT is not the requirement of law at the relevant time to have supplied the report of the inquiry. Even otherwise, no argument has been addressed on this point.

(3.) HOWEVER, looking into the seriousness of the charges, the respondents shall be at liberty to continue the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner by affording him proper opportunity and associating him in the inquiry if it is so desired, and if ultimately the findings are found to be adverse against the petitioner, the respondents shall also be free to punish the petitioner as per law including the punishment of retirement, if so warranted by the circumstances.