LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) THESE two appeals have been filed by Dr. Sarvada Nand Sharma and the State of Rajasthan, against the order dated 27. 8. 1997, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. We have heard Shri R. C. Joshi, learned counsel for Dr. Sarvada Nand Sharma, and Shri N. K. Maloo, learned counsel for the respondent - State.
(2.) THE petitioner appellant in Appeal No. 852/1999, was serving as Sheep & Wool Extension Officer. A charge sheet was served upon him under section 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 22. 10. 1982. After conducting the enquiry, an order dated 3. 8. 1985, imposing punishment of dismissal from service, was passed by the respondent State. THE said order was challenged by the petitioner appellant in this Court by filing writ petition. THE writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 27. 8. 1997. A short order was passed by the learned Single Judge, which reads as under; " By this writ petition, the order of termination of service dated 3. 08. 1985 have been challenged. THE petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation. THE arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties have been heard. THE finding which has been given in respect of two charges is of fact which does not require any interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. THE fact that the medicine were purchased by the petitioner is not disputed one. THE other charge is that such medicine was distributed to the villagers at higher price to earn the profit and fees etc. THE order of termination in the facts and circumstances, cannot be said to be bad in law. It is, however, directed that the petitioner could be given pensionary benefit by taking into consideration the services rendered by him till 3. 08. 1985 when the order of termination was passed. THE writ petition shall stand disposed of with the above observation. " While affirming the order of dismissal, the learned Judge has, however directed the respondent State to give pensionary benefits to the petitioner by taking into consideration the services rendered by him till 3. 8. 1985 when the order of dismissal was passed. This direction has been challenged by the respondent State. Mr. N. K. Maloo, learned counsel for the State, submitted that the learned Single Judge having held that the order of dismissal from service is right it cannot be interfered with by directing the State to give pensionary benefits by taking into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner. He has further alleged that once the order of dismissal was upheld there court not have been any direction for payment of pensionary benefits because, in case of dismissal from service, pension and other retirement benefits are not payable. Since the observations made in the order are self contradictory the said direction was challenged by the State. It has been prayed in the appeal that the said direction deserves to be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, Mr. R. C. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant in Appeal No. 852/1999, challenged the order of the learned Single Judge alleging that it is non-speaking one and that the learned Single Judge, while affirming the impugned order of dismissal from service, has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case and the documents placed on record. Therefore, the finding recorded is perverse and liable to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) WE have perused entire pleadings and the documents filed. In this case, vide the memorandum dated 22. 10. 1982 (Annex. 3 to the writ petition) the appellant employee was served with a charge sheet along with the statement of allegations. The allegations levelled against him was that while working as Sheep & Wool Extension Officer, Kharchi, District - Pali, he has misused his post by unauthorisedly purchasing medicines directly from the company. The other charge was in regard to distribution of the said medicines among the poor sheep owners by charging fees thereof, thereby misusing his post and powers for personal benefits. An enquiry was conducted. The employee also allowed inspection of the documents and the records and was also furnished with the copies of statements of the witnesses. However, the appellant employee did not file any reply to the charge sheet and statement of allegations. It is seen from the record that the petitioner was also supplied with the copes of documents. On 24. 5. 1984, arguments were heard. The petitioner employee submitted reply to the charge sheet and statement of allegations. The Enquiry Officer, after hearing arguments and considering written submissions of the petitioner employee, submitted the enquiry report to the State Government, who, after seeking advise of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, passed order of punishment of dismissal from service against the appellant employee. The appellant employee was supplied with the copies of the enquiry report and the advise of the RPSC, vide order dated 17. 9. 1985. It is seen from the proceedings that the Department examined 10 witnesses in support of its case, whereas, the petitioner examined 3 witnesses besides himself. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the employee were proved. Accordingly he was punished. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner appellant has argued that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved against him and therefore, the punishment awarded is liable to be quashed and set aside or, in any event, the punishment is liable to be modified. ;