Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THIS intra -court appeal is directed against the order dated 22.08.1997 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition (CWP No. 1659/1984) filed by the petitioner -appellant wherein he prayed for quashing of the orders dated 10.10.1977, 25.03.1980, and 24.03.1984.
(2.) BY the order dated 10.10.1977, the Disciplinary Authority, after departmental inquiry, proceeded to impose upon the petitioner -appellant the penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension per Clause (v) of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'); and by the orders dated 25.03.1980 and 24.03.1984, respectively the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities proceeded to reject the appeal and the review petition filed by the petitioner -appellant. Briefly put the relevant facts and background aspects of the matter are that the appellant J.L. Mehsani, then working as Patrolling Officer, Preventive Force, Excise Department, was served with a memorandum along with charge -sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 on the allegations that while working as Excise Inspector, Circle Aligarh (Tonk) in the year 1972 -73, he carried out raid at the house of one Ramkaran on 18.09.1972 and seized six bottles of liquor despite having been shown the permit; that he attempted to institute a false case against the said Shri Ramkaran and demanded an amount of Rs. 500/ - by way of illegal gratification; and that eventually, he let Ramkaran off, on being paid Rs. 150/ -. It was, thus, the allegation in Charge Nos. 1 and 2 that the appellant misused his power and collected the amount of bribe. The appellant was further charged with the allegation that on 04.08.1972, he recovered an amount of Rs. 120/ - from Shri Ramkaran towards compounding of Case No. 31/1 972 but did not deposit the said amount in the treasury and embezzled the same.
(3.) AFTER the appellant submitted reply denying the charges, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to appoint Deputy Commissioner, Preventive Force, Udaipur as the inquiry officer, who submitted the inquiry report dated 26.07.1976, essentially finding charges Nos. 1 and 2 relating to illegal raid proceedings and receiving of bribe proved but charge No. 3 regarding embezzlement not proved.;