PRATHVI RAJ MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer (Flying Squad), Makarana and one other officer Shri R.D. Singh was also holding the post of Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer in Makarana itself. The petitioner's office was inspected and then because of the delinquency, the petitioner was served with the charge -sheet under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958. Shri R.D. Singh was also served with the same charge -sheet with difference only of absence from duty of a different date. Rest of the charges are verbatim the same. The petitioner submitted reply to the charges, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.2. The disciplinary authority rejected the petitioner's contention by saying that petitioner did not produce any evidence and observed that from the record, the guilt of the petitioner has been proved. The exact verbatim same order was passed for Shri R.D. Singh by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order of the disciplinary authority dt. 10.04.2006 imposing penalty of censure preferred appeal before the State Government, which was dismissed by the Government with observation that the petitioner has not raised any new ground and the grounds which have been raised are not substantial.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has shown the order of the disciplinary authority passed in the case of Shri R.D. Singh and also placed on record the copy of the order dt. 08.08.2003 passed by the State Government on R.D. Singh's appeal as Annex.6 alongwith the rejoinder. It will be worthwhile to mention here that even in the reply to the writ petition the State also admitted that when the petitioner and R.D. Singh were working at Makarana Circle on the posts concerned, an inspection was carried out by the Commercial Taxes Officer and he found irregularities and, therefore, separate charge -sheet was served upon Shri R.D. Singh also.