SHARMA, J. - (1.) BY filing instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: (i) to quash the impugned order of penalty dated 1.3.1997 Annex. 16; (ii) to quash the enquiry report dated 16.11.1995 Annex. 12; (iii) to quash the charge-sheet dated 17.9.1993 Annex. 1; (iv) in alternative to quash the penalty imposed upon the petitioner vide impugned order dated 1.3.1997 looking to the outstanding service of the petitioner and may pass an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case. The complete record on the basis of charge-sheet and of enquiry may be called for perusal."
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner had retired on 30th September 1993 from the post of Executive Engineer, Department of Irrigation, Jhalawar and is getting pension regularly but he has been penalised in a departmental enquiry. The penalty which has been imposed upon the petitioner is stoppage of 20% of his pension for five years and recovery of Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner rendered about 36 years of service with the State Government and during his entire service career, his service record was outstanding. He was granted annual grade increments regularly, he was given his due promotions regularly and during his tenure of 36 years, he was granted two promotions i.e. first on the post of Assistant Engineer and another to the post of Executive Engineer. Just before ten days of his retirement he was served with a charge-sheet and that too, due to the prejudices and biasness on the part of the then Superintending Engineer (respondent No. 3 Shri Madhur Bihari Mathur). The respondent No. 3 proposed to serve four charge-sheets to the petitioner. After inquiry into two proposed charge-sheets, the petitioner was exonerated completely and with due dignity while in the third proposed charge-sheet it has been observed and recommended by the Superintending Engineer Shri R.D. Sharma of Irrigation Department of Irrigation Circle, Bharatpur to the Addl. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Zone, Jaipur that he was not intended to make any over payment and there was no ' illegality and irregularity in payment made to the contractor at all. It was also expressed by the Superintending Engineer in his letter dated 28.1.1994 addressed to Shri R.C. Sharma, Addl. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Zone, Jaipur. In the present 4th charge-sheet, the Superintending Engineer Mr. Mathur has succeeded in getting the petitioner penalished. As per the charge- sheet, the allegation of causing loss of Rs. 20,000/- to the government has been levelled against the petitioner. A charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajas than Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules '1958') was served upon the petitioner on 21.9.1993 i.e. just before nine days of his retirement on superannuation i.e. on 30.9.1993 from the post of Executive Engineer. The aforesaid charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner on the basis of a complaint made by a private contractor M/s. Inter Continental Traders, Jaipur, wherein the allegations of purchasing of 22 gauge 100 iron sheets required for the existing tin shade through the tenders were invited only for 18 gauge iron sheets, were levelled. The grievance of the Contractor M/s. Inter Continental Traders, Jaipur, was that he was not provided opportunity to submit tender for the iron sheets of 22 gauge. The allegations levelled in the charge-sheet are that the tenders were invited only for 18 gauge iron sheets while having collusion with two contractors/firms, iron sheets of 22 gauge @ 425/- per sheet were purchased at a higher rate and thus the petitioner caused loss to the State Government. The inquiry was conducted and on completion of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report to the Government. Thereafter, the respondents sent a letter to the petitioner on 23.12.1995 asking him to make a representation on the enquiry report, if any. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his representation on the enquiry report. After considering the representation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents sent a letter on 4.4.1996 to the petitioner wherein it was proposed to impose penalty of withholding of 20% of pension for five years and recovery of Rs. 20,000/-. The respondents asked the petitioner to submit his representation to the proposed penalty. Upon this the petitioner sent detailed reply to the aforesaid letter on 18.4.1996. Ultimately, the respondents passed a final order of penalty against the petitioner vide order dated 1.3.1997 imposing a penalty of stoppage of 20% of pension for five years and recovery of Rs. 20,000/-.
(3.) HENCE, this writ petition. Mr. S.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inquiry report and the order dated 1.3.1997 are patently illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that though the disciplinary authority have a right to initiate departmental proceedings/enquiry against a delinquent employee/officer and punish him, if found guilty. According to Mr. Gupta, firstly, the enquiry report is patently illegal, arbitrary and perverse to the facts and record and secondly, the respondents while passing the impugned order of penalty have committed an illegality. The petitioner was not afforded proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing and thus his valuable right to defend himself in the enquiry as guaranteed by the provisions of Articles 14 ad 16 of the Constitution of India as well as by Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 have been violated. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court upon the complaint Ex. P.9. He submits that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority as also the State Government have considered a very relevant aspect of the matter which goes to the root of the matter and the complaint Ex. P.9 on the basis of which the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner was issued to the petitioner, was not proved by DW3 Nand Kishore Goyal, who is said to be the author of the same. DW3 Nand Kishore Goyal is Proprietor/Partner of M/s. Inter Continental Traders upon letter head the aforesaid complaint Ex. P.9 was made. DW 3 clearly denied about the aforesaid complaint and stated in unequivocal terms that no such complaint was made by the firm or by any of his agent or representative at all. Further no allegation leveled in the charge-sheet has been proved by the department against the petitioner and in-fact there is only one charge and the same can be divided into three parts for convenience. According to him, the first part is that the tenders were invited for 18 gauge iron sheets but the rates of 22 gauge and 24 gauge iron sheets were also got included in the tenders after having collusion with two contractors. The second part is that before purchasing the iron sheets, neither NAC was obtained nor contact was made with the Department of Industries. The third part is that the 22 gauge iron sheet could have been supplied by M/s. Inter Continental Traders @ 255/- per sheet but due to non-mentioning of the same in the notification for inviting tenders, the firm could not submit tender of his price. ;