DWARKA PRASAD GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Patwari by the District Land Records Officer, Pali on July 10, 1951. In the year 1963 he was posted as a Patwari in village Chanari, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali.
(2.) THE Sub -divisional Officer, Bali visited village Chanari on November 7, 1963 and during his tour two complaints were submitted before him by the residents of the village. One complaint was made by Shankersingh and Roopa while the other by Dhula, Bhura, Dalla and Premraj. In both cases an allegation was made that the petitioner, while acting as a Patwari, did not enter in the 'Patwar Record' the newly constructed wells of the complainants and demanded Rs. 11/ -each for making the requisite entry and thus he was guilty of demanding illegal gratification. Two departmental enquiries were initiated in respect of the two complaints file against the petitioner and two different charge sheets were served upon the petitioner, on a of which will here in after be referred to as 'Shankersingh's complaint' while the other one will be referred to as 'Dhula's complaint'. The Collector, Pali forwarded the two charge sheets, along with memorandums of allegations to the petitioner and appointed the Sub -divisional Officer, Bali as the enquiry officer in respect of both the departmental enquiries. Both the charge sheets along with memorandums of allegations were served upon the petitioner. He filed a written statement in respect of Shankersingh's complaint but did not file any reply in respect of Dhula's complaint. In the enquiry in respect of Shankersingh's cert plaint the petitioner was held guilty and the disciplinary authority viz. the Collector, Pali agreed with the finding arrived at by the enquiry officer and issued a second notice as referred under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, to the petitioner to show cause why he should rot be dismissed from Government service. In respect of Dhula's complaint, the enquiry officer also held that the allegation was proved against the petitioner but the disciplinary authority viz. the Collector, Pali found that the evidence was not properly considered by the Sub -divisional Officer, Bali and the Collector directed that a de novo enquiry should be held and a fresh enquiry report should be submitted. A fresh enquiry in pursuance of the remand order passed by the Collector, Pali, was conducted by the successor Sub -divisional Officer, Bali, although the earlier enquiry was conducted by Shri Jasraj, the then Sub -divisional Officer. The petitioner was informed about the de novo enquiry and he took part in the proceedings of the fresh enquiry held against him, cross -examined the witnesses produced on behalf of the department and also produced his evidence in defence. The Sub -divisional Officer, Bali found charge No. 1 proved against the petitioner, namely, that he received a sum of Rs. 11/ -each from Bhura, Dalla and Dhula by way of illegal gratification for entering the newly constructed wells of these persons in the 'Patwar Records'. The Collector, Pali agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and gave a notice to the petitioner as contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution on June 4, 1970 (Ex.9) in respect of Dhula's complaint. A reply was filed by the petitioner to this notice on June 22, 1970. It was for the first time at that stage an objection was taken by the petitioner that copies of the charge sheet and memorandum of allegations were not served upon him. This reply dated June 22, 1970 was also sent by the petitioner in the matter pertaining to Shankersingh's complaint; although it related to Dhula's complaint and the stand taken by the petitioner was that from an inspection of the record he did not find that service of the charge sheet was effected upon him. The Collector, Pali had directed the petitioner by his letter dated June 4,1970 (Ex. 9) to appear in person before him on June 29, 1970 and to submit his objections, if any. However, the petitioner did not present himself personally before the Collector on June 29, 1970. As no reply to the notice issued in accordance with under Article 311 was received in respect of Dhula's complaint, the Collector passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service on July 15, 1970. A review petition filed by the petitioner was rejected on October 20, 1970. An appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed on March 30, 1971. There after a second appeal preferred to the State Government was rejected on April 20, 1973.
(3.) IN this writ petition, the principal contention advanced by the petitioner is that the charge sheet and the statement of allegations in respect of Dhula's complaint were not received by him. The petitioner modified the stand taken earlier by him and in the writ petition he has submitted that although two charge sheets were sent to the petitioner, one pertaining to Shankersingh's complaint and the other pertaining to Dhula's complaint, yet as he thought one to be a copy of the other, he kept with him the copy of the charge sheet and other accompanying documents in respect of Shankersingh's complaint and returned the papers relating to Dhula's complaint, including the copy of the charge sheet, after acknowledging receipt of the charge sheet in respect of Shankersingh's complaint. It is urged by the learned Counsel that the principles of natural justice were violated in as much as the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in respect of Dhula's complaint without the petitioner even knowing the nature of the allegations which were the subject matter of enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings against him. The learned Deputy Government Advocate has produced before me the entire record of the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the Sub -divisional Officer, Bali in respect of Dhula's complaint. It appears from a perusal of the record that a copy of the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner through the Head Master, Patwari Training School, Udaipur and the acknowledgement of the petitioner in respect there or is on the record. It is not the petitioner's case that he was not aware of the fact that two separate complaints were filed against him before the Sub -divisional Officer, Bali on November 7, 1963 when the said officer visited village Chenari. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner's learned Counsel that the petitioner mistook the two charge sheets as copies of the same document. In Shankersingh's complaint, the allegation was chat the petitioner had demanded Rs. 11/ - from Shankersingh for making an entry in respect, of his newly constructed well in the 'Patwar Register', while in Dhula's complaint, the allegation was that Bhura, Dhula and Dalla were charged Rs. 11/ - each by the petitioner unlawfully for making entries of their respective wells in the Patwar Register. The petitioner was a Patwari of the village Chenari and be must be well aware of the fact that Shanker Singh on the one hand and Dhula, Dalla and Bhura on the other hand had separate wells. The most important aspect of the matter is that the petitioner had taken part in the disciplinary proceedings in respect of both the complaints from the very beginning upto the end and at no stage of the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer, be made a grievance that a copy of the charge sheet or the statement of allegations was not served upon the petitioner. As a matter of fact in the writ petition it has been accepted by the petitioner that he had received copies of the charge sheet and statement of allegations in respect of Dhula's complaint, but according to him, he had returned the same after acknowledging the receipt thereof, under a mistaken impression that the charge sheet was a copy of the charge sheet sent it Shankersingh's complaint. On a careful examination of the record of the disciplinary proceedings, I find that the acknowledgement receipt has been endorsed by the petitioner on the forwarding letter and it does not appear from the record that the petitioner had returned the charge sheet and the memorandum of allegations sent to him in respect of Dhula's complaint. It is indeed surprising that the petitioner having taken part in the disciplinary enquiry relating to Dhula's complaint, as he cross -examined the witnesses including Dhula, Bhura and Dalla and also examined his own witnesses in defence, which was not possible for him to do without at least knowing the nature of the charges or the details contained in the statement of allegations in respect of such charges, could now turn round and allege at the stage of the writ petition that he had returned the copy of the charge sheet and the statement of allegations pertaining to Dhula's complaint. It is also apparent from the record that on August 5, 1967 the petitioner applied for change of the enquiry officer. As already mentioned above, in the disciplinary proceedings to Dhula's complaint the Collector, Pali had ordered a de novo enquiry and as a result thereof the disciplinary enquiry was again held by a different officer after serving a notice upon the petitioner and the petitioner also took part in the de novo enquiry as well.;