Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging order dated 08.06.1994 of his removal and order dated 11.09.1996 rejecting his appeal filed there -against. Petitioner was initially appointed as Patwari by order dated 02.03.1968 and was later on confirmed on that post by order dated 20.05.1975. Petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 17.12.1987 pursuant to order of Board of Revenue dated 07.12.1987. A charge -sheet was issued to him on 14.08.1988. He submitted reply thereto. Along -with reply, the petitioner produced ten documents and a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf in disciplinary enquiry. He submitted a representation to District Collector, Baran, on 20.07.1991 requesting for his reinstatement pending conclusion of disciplinary enquiry. The order of suspension was revoked on 01.11.1991 and petitioner was reinstated back in service. The petitioner submitted a representation to the District Collector on 21.12.1991 demanding fresh enquiry and alleging that the enquiry so conducted was not fair and proper because the enquiry officer has first of all examined the petitioner and his witnesses and the witnesses of the department were examined subsequently, which is contrary to the procedure contained in Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the CCA Rules'), which vitiated the entire enquiry. The District Collector, by his order dated 08.06.1994, imposed penalty of dismissal from the services. Petitioner filed appeal against that order of his removal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kota, who rejected the same by order dated 11.09.1996. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) SHRI Manoj Pareek, learned Counsel for petitioner, contended that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner prior to passing of order dated 08.06.1994, which has seriously prejudiced his case. The petitioner submitted an application to disciplinary authority on 23.06.1994 demanding copies of fifteen documents, but the In -charge of the Land Records Section, by his order dated 29.06.1994 refused to supply him any of these documents on the pretext that the same were not available. Only two documents were given to him.;