JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE meaningful question that crops up in this writ petition is whether the Disciplinary Authority, who disagrees with the report of enquiry officer exonerating the delinquent of the charges levelled against him, should afford further opportunity of hearing to the delinquent before proceeding to award punishment?

(2.) THE petitioner while working as Senior Demonstrator in Anatomy at S. M. S. Medical College, Jaipur was selected for deputation to Iran. THE petitioner was to join the duties at Iran on July 20, 1975 therefore on his request he was relieved in the afternoon of July 18, 1975. THEreafter the petitioner left for Iran and came back to India in October 1985 and reported in the Medical Department on October 15, 1985. THE petitioner was kept A. P. O. (Awaiting Posting Orders) and by an order dated July 14, 1986 the petitioner was given posting as Senior Demonstrator in Anatomy in S. P. Medical College Bikaner. THE Principal and Controller S. M. S. Medical College Jaipur under his covering letter dated Sept. 3, 1985 sent a memo proposing an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the CCA Rules ). THE charge against the petitioner was that he had been wilfully absent from S. M. S. College Jaipur since July 19, 1975. An enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on December 31, 1986 exonerating the petitioner from the charge levelled against him. But the Disciplinary Authority (THE State of Rajasthan) did not agree with the report of Enquiry Officer and imposed punishment on the petitioner dismissing him from the service vide order dated May 16, 1989. Against this order of punishment the action for filing the instant writ petition has been resorted to by the petitioner.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner was not provided by the Disciplinary Authority with a copy of the aforequoted letters dated September 23, 1988 and December 3, 1988. Opinion of Rajasthan Public Service Commission was not the part of the report of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority could pass order of punishment after recording reasons for his disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer but no such order could be passed placing reliance on such material which was not supplied to the petitioner. This can be considered as a negation of the principles of natural justice. Before the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to award punishment on the basis of opinion given by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission the petitioner should have been afforded opportunity of hearing in respect of such opinion.