VERMA, J. - (1.) AN ex parte enquiry was held against petitioner on the charge sheet issued under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 by the Collector, Jaipur, as per charge sheet and statement of allegation dated 28. 12. 83 (annexures 1, 2 & 3 ). The SDO, Sambhar was appointed as Enquiry Officer under the Rules. The ex parte findings have been submitted by Enquiry Officer on 30. 5. 84. The Disciplinary Authority, respondent No. 3, the Collector awarded the punishment of withholding of 2 Grade Increments with future effect vide order dated 28. 9. 84 (annexure-6 ). The appeal was filed against the order of punishment to the Chairman Board of Revenue, which was rejected vide order dated 31. 7. 86 (annexure- 7 ). The review application was also dismissed vide order dated 8. 6. 90 (annexure-8 ). Being aggrieved against the orders annexures 6, 7 and 8, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition.
(2.) APART from other grounds challenging the enquiry proceeding, punishment and dismissal of appeal and review application, it has been submitted that no misconduct has been made out against the petitioner. Primarily the petitioner submits for challenging the exparte enquiry, by saying that the ex parte enquiry was held in violation of principles of natural justice as the date so fixed by Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was not informed of the hearing of enquiry, but still the Enquiry Officer had proceeded the enquiry ex parte; This ground has been taken in sub para No. (H) of para No. 9, that is, in grounds of the writ petition. It is submitted that on the first date of hearing i. e. 14. 3. 84 the next date of enquiry was fixed as 5. 4. 84 at Mozmabad. The petitioner attended at Mozmabad on 5. 4. 84, but neither the Enquiry Officer, nor his reader reached at Mozmabad, with the result the petitioner had to come back. After 5. 4. 84, the petitioner was expecting for the date of enquiry to be intimated to petitioner, however, he was never informed of any date of hearing. Even though the petitioner had come to know lateron that the Enquiry Officer had fixed the date 20. 4. 84 and 5. 5. 84 and ultimately on 24. 5. 84 the ex parte order was passed. The prosecution witnesses were examined exparte and without following the provisions of the Rules the Enquiry Report has been submitted. The petitioner had challenged the ex parte enquiry on the ground that he was not intimated of any date after 5. 4. 84, when the petitioner presented himself at Mozmabad, but the Enquiry Officer or any other person had not reached there. In the reply, the contents of ground `h' of the writ petition are not admitted. It is submitted that notice was given to petitioner and he was present. It is further submitted that initially 5. 4. 84 was fixed and thereafter, the next date was fixed as 20. 4. 84 and 24. 5. 84. The respondent has filed very vague reply and has not stated anything about the date of 5. 4. 84 when the petitioner was present at Mozmabad but no one on behalf of prosecution was present. It is also not mentioned in the reply that any intimation was given to petitioner or not about the subsequent dates. Faced with the situation, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate was directed on 12. 2. 2001 to produce the original record of the enquiry proceeding, which has been produced today. I have gone though the proceeding of enquiry of the date of 24. 2. 84, 9. 3. 84, 14. 3. 84, which have been signed by the Enquiry Officer. The proceeding of 5. 4. 84 is not signed by the Enquiry Officer, but somebody else had signed the same. The proceeding of 20. 4. 84, 5. 5. 84 and 24. 5. 84 have been signed by Enquiry Officer, which clearly shows that for the proceeding of 5. 4. 84 the Enquiry Officer was not present as it has been signed by somebody else.
(3.) ON the proceeding of 20. 4. 84 and 5. 5. 84 it has been noted that the delinquent officer was not present. On 24. 5. 84, it has been noted that the delinquent was not present inspite of intimation of the date on 7. 5. 84. The photo copy of the proceedings of 5. 4. 84, 20. 4. 84, 5. 5. 84 and 24. 5. 84 is taken on record and is also reproduced here under:- ....Vernacular Text Ommited.... Mr. Purohit counsel for the respondent submits that as per proceeding of 24. 5. 84 the delinquent might have been informed by letter dated 7. 5. 84. The letter dated 7. 5. 84 is also on the file of enquiry proceeding. The letter No. 483/pa dated 7. 5. 84 has been looked into, but there is no proof whatsoever brought on record of the file that the delinquent was ever informed or intimated about the date of 24. 5. 84. The photo copy of the letter dated 7. 5. 84 is taken on record. ;