G.M.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division clerk under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service, Rules, 1960. He was confirmed on 15 -10 -60 on this post.
(2.) THE petitioner was directed to discharge the service of Cashier after he was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk. In September, 1966, an incident happened which was alleged as a case of theft on account of which, an amount of Rs. 4139,59 was found missing from the Panchayat Samitis where the petitioner was in -charge of it. A report was made by the Chowkidar on 5 -9 -66 that the lock of the cashier room and almirah in the room was brokeon and Iron chest was missing. A case was registered but ultimately a final report was given.
(3.) THEREAFTER , on 29 -9 -70, an order dated 30 -7 -70 was served on the petitioner in which direction was given to Vikas Adhikari to recover Rs.425 1.98 P. from the petitioner. This order is Anx. and reads as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... An appeal was filed by petitioner against this order. One of the ground taken in this appeal was that recovery of the amount on the ground of negligence Is one of the punishments which could be given under rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules) and this can be done only after holding an enquiry as contemplated by the Rules, On 21 -1 -71, a letter was addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Development, Rajas than Jaipur to the Commissioner, Local Audit Funds, in which it was mentioned, inter alia that the order for recovery as punishment can be given after holding enquiry under the CCA Rules by the appointing authority only and the impugned order appears to be unlawful It was also pointed out that full enquiry should be conducted to ascertain haw many employees are liable and responsible for this and only after that, the disciplinary proceedings should be taken according to the rules Inspire of this, no enquiry was either instituted and the proceedings for recovery only continued as is evident from various other orders passed. The additional District Development Officer, Udaipur, by letter dated 1 -8 -74 mentioned that the advice given by the District Development Officer is not correct and, therefore, recovery proceedings should be continued. It is precisely in the above circumstances that the petitioner hat filed this writ application. ;