Ashok Bhan, J. - (1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal who in the present suit had challenged the order dated 17.5.1973 passed by Collector, Karnal, vide which he was dismissed from service.
(2.) The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that he joined the revenue department as Patwari after passing the Patwar examination. His work and conduct remained satisfactory during the tenure of his service. He was placed under suspension on 21.4.1971 by order of Collector, Karnal. Thereafter he was served with a charge-sheet that he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2238.71 after recovering the same from various persons and that he remained absent since 17.2.1971 except from 4.3.1971 to 5.3.1971. The charge-sheet was framed on the basis of complaint filed by Hari Singh Karam Chand Baru, Bhana and Hoshiar Singh, Tehsildar Panipat, conducted preliminary enquiry and in that enquiry Tehsildar recorded the statements of the complainants as also of Ramji Lal Kanungo. Tehsildar submitted his report on the basis of which charge-sheet was framed and Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Panipat, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct a regular enquiry who examined the above-mentioned persons as witnesses besides Anand Parkash, Jaswant Singh and Dharam Singh Sarpanch. It was also alleged that the witnesses did not support the charges but the Enquiry Officer relying upon the statements recorded during preliminary enquiry held the charges to have been established against the appellant. It was also alleged that the Punishing Authority did not apply its mind and agreed with the Enquiry Officer and ordered the dismissal of the appellant. His appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division. According to the plaintiff-appellant, this order is illegal, without any evidence and against the principles of natural justice.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant-State. In the preliminary objections taken in the written statement, it was stated that the suit was not maintainable in the present form; notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was invalid and that the plaintiff had no cause of action. On merits, it was stated that plaintiff-appellant was a Patwari and he was placed under suspension and charge-sheeted. It was further stated that the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed on receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer; he was granted personal hearing before passing the impugned order. The other allegations made by the plaintiff were controverted. It was stated that the plaintiff supplied with the charge-sheet, list of witnesses and documents as required under law. He was given full opportunity to produce his evidence and allowed to be assisted and represented by the counsel. The Enquiry Officer and Punishing Authorities have fully complied with the relevant provisions applicable to the case.;