SOHAN RAJ SURANA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by way of filing the present writ petition initially questions the validity and legality of the suspension order dated 25.7.69 Ex. P/l and subsequently by way of amended writ petition, he questions the validity and legality of the impugned order of dismissal from service dated 25.7.89 Ex. P/14 to the writ petition on the ground inter alia, that once he was proceeded on the same charges in a criminal offence before a competent Court of law and was acquitted on the premises that the prosecution has failed to prove charges then thereafter the disciplinary authority cannot be allowed to dismiss him on the same set of circumstances on the same evidence which has been disbelieved by a competent Court of law. It is also averred in the writ petition that enquiry report and order of dismissal in his case is based on no evidence. It is also averred in the writ petition that the deceased -petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing and as such the principles of natural justice have been violated in dismissing him from service.

(2.) IT is admitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that the deceased -petitioner had already retired after attaining the age of superannuation while dismissal order was passed. The petitioner expired during pendency of the present writ petition and he is represented by his legal representatives.

(3.) THE enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, which was ex parte without giving any opportunity of hearing to the deceased -petitioner and without being supplied copies of the documents or allowing inspection thereof though prayed by him. It was mentioned in the enquiry report that due to non -availability of record, the charges against the deceased -petitioner could not be proved but despite of this, it was found that he was guilty for the alleged charges as he failed to substantiate his defence. The enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer is on record, wherein, at page 51, it is mentioned that the deceased -petitioner cannot be given benefit of committing embezzlement of record.