K.S.LODHA, J. - (1.)THE petitioner Miss. Hara roop Chandni was working as LDC in the office of Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle 'B' lodhpur. She was admittedly incharge of certain files pertaining to the Rajasthan goods and Passangers Taxes Act. (hereinafter to as the Act. From the period 3 -1 -67 till October, 1967. It appears that some complaqints were lodged that a number of files partaing to the said Act. Had beebn tampered with in that department in order to cause wrongful gaim to the varions vehicles owners who were liable to pay the tax under the said Act. And an enquiry was, therefore, made in this respect. That a departmental by order dated 16 -10 -70 as it appeared that the enquity would take long time. Then a charge -sheet was served on the petitioner on 17 -1 -70 but the same was later with drawn on 7 -4 -71
(2.)AGAIN , a fresh change -sheet was served upon the petitioner on 14 -4 -72 vide her application Ex. 8 but according to the petitioner she was appointed on 6 -572 which is Ex. 11 on the record. He also was to hold a joint enquiry against 11 persons including the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her reply to the charges which were leveled against her vide Ex. 7 on 14 -472. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer did not record any evidence nor the copies of any statements of the witnesses were ever supplied to the petitioner. However, it appears that the enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from those changes but the learned Deputy Commissioner (Adm.), Commercial Taxes Department, Joedhpur disagreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and found the petition guilty of a part of the charge viz, contributory negligence and in responsibility as it was her duty to take the charge in the charge in the proper manner which she did not do and nor did she report the matter to the officer concerned and on this of two grade increments with cumutlative effect against the petitioner vide order dated 23 -75 (Ex. 14).
The petitioner filled an appeal against this order Before the Commissioner, Commercial' Taxes Jaipur but the same was dismissed and the dismissal was communicated to the petitioner by letter, dated 10 -12 -76 (Ex. 16). Skill dis -satisfied with it the petitioner filed another appeal to the Finance Secretary to the State off Rajasthan but the same was held not maintainable by the order of the Finance Department dated 3 -8 -77 (Ex. 18). She has therefore come up to this Court by way of writ petition. The State has filed a reply to the writ petition and has supported the orders of the various authorities referred to above

(3.)I have heard the learned Counsel far the petitioner. and the learned Deputy Government Advocate and have also gone through the record.