KUNJBIHARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition assails the order dated 17th July, 1998 by which the petitioner was punished with removal from service. He also challenges the order passed in appeal dated 17.12.1998 by which his appeal was dismissed and also the order passed in review petition dated 12.3.2001, whereby his review petition was dismissed.

(2.) Charge levelled against the petitioner was of remaining willfully absent from duty for 153 days for the period 5.12.1996 upto 7.5.1997. The defence which the petitioner was taken in the preliminary enquiry was that he was absent on account of his son having become disabled and his father having suffered from leprosy. The documents relating to said effect were also produced by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Rule 16 of CCA Rules 1958. It is his submission that the charge sheet contained list of witnesses wherein the names of the enquiry officer and presenting officer had been shown as witnesses but the enquiry was allowed to be conducted by the said enquiry officer. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had objected to the said enquiry and also requested for change of enquiry Officer but the same was not acceded by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel further submits that the copy of the enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner in spite of the request and his case was seriously prejudiced. Learned counsel also further submits that the Disciplinary Authority while passing the order of punishment dated 17th July, 1998 has taken into consideration the facts which were not part of the charge sheet. The petitioner was not given opportunity to examine the documents and the instances which have been quoted in the impugned order dated 17 th July, 1998 could not be answered by the petitioner.