- (1.) Instant petition has been filed assailing penalty of dismissal from service inflicted vide order dt.02/06/2000 (Ann.7) pursuant to disciplinary inquiry initiated vide memo of charge dt.12/03/1997 (Ann.1) U/r 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ("CCA Rules") affirmed by appellate authority dismissing appeal vide order dt.05/08/2000 (Ann.9).
(2.) Petitioner joined service on the post of Patwari in the year 1979 and remained posted as Patwari in Patwar Mandal Narayanpur Tatwara Tehsil Gangapur (Sawai Madhopur) for the period from 29/09/1989 to 04/08/1993. After almost two years of he being transferred from Patwar Mandal Narayanpur Tatwara, a complaint was made by complainant (Nanagram s/o Gendaram R/o Vill. Tatawara) on 28/07/1995 (Ann.2) that petitioner came to his residence on 15/03/1992 and advised that Rs.27,000/- could be sanctioned in his favour under Government Scheme Jevandhara, for digging/ construction of a well, and for allotment of Two & half bigha out of Pasture land situated nearby his agricultural land; and in lieu thereof, petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2800/- and that was paid to him but has failed to refund.
(3.) On the complaint (supra), cognizance was taken by the Collector and some preliminary inquiry, as alleged was held - in course whereof, he was never called upon at any stage; however, charge sheet dt.12/03/1997 U/r 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 was served along with statement of allegations (Ann.1) ad infra: XXX XXX XXX After reply to the charge sheet was submitted on 22/04/1998 (Ann.3), inquiry officer was appointed and after recording of evidence of departmental witnesses but without reasonable opportunity of cross examination being afforded to the delinquent petitioner and an opportunity to lead evidence in defence thereof, the inquiry report was submitted by inquiry officer on 10/03/1999 which was served upon the petitioner pursuant to which he submitted reply on 25/10/1999 and appeared for personal hearing on 29/11/1999 but his written objection to the inquiry report was not considered and disciplinary authority finally held him guilty of misconduct and inflicted penalty of dismissal from service vide order dt.02/06/2000 (Ann.7) against which he preferred departmental appeal (Ann.8) raising all objections with respect to contradictions in statements of departmental witnesses apart from the fact that he was not afforded opportunity of cross examining witnesses at the stage of preliminary /disciplinary inquiry, causing prejudice to him, but his appeal was dismissed by appellate authority vide order dt.05/08/2000 - copy whereof was endorsed vide letter dt.21/08/2000 (Ann.9).;