STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LAKHAMA RAM MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dtd. 9/1/2019 whereby learned Single Jude, relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sengara Singh and Others v. The State of Punjab and Others - AIR 1984 SC 1499 and Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. and Others - (2013) 3 SCC 73, arrived at the finding that the disciplinary authority was required to give a notice of disagreement to the petitioner-respondent whereas no such notice was not served on him and therefore the learned Single Judge set aside the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner-respondent passed by the disciplinary authority.

(2.) Mr. S.S. Raghav, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, submitted that the enquiry officer has, although exonerated the petitioner-respondent on charge No. 1, but categorically found the charge No. 2 proved against the petitioner-respondent and therefore the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the notice of disagreement was required to be served on the petitioner-respondent, was not legally correct.

(3.) Mr. Ashwini Jaiman, learned counsel for the petitioner respondent, has submitted that the charge No. 2 against the petitioner-respondent was to the effect that he did not place on file No. 75/92 copy of the site plan and thus facilitated payment of compensation to Sheoji Meena, thereby causing loss to the State exchequer, although Sheoji Meena was not entitled to receive such compensation as it was pasture land and he did not have any title over that land. The enquiry officer has however recorded a finding that the 'moka parcha' report was caused to be removed from the file with mala fide intention of securing undue benefit to Sheoji Meena, though the land in dispute was a pasture land and the file was being maintained by the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the disciplinary authority was required to serve notice of disagreement because the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority was entirely different than the finding recorded by the enquiry officer.