G.S.Singhvi, J. - (1.) The petitioner who joined Government service as Patwari, was served with a memorandum dated 4.4.88 issued under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, whereby an enquiry was proposed against the petitioner in respect of 4 charges levelled against him. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet in the month of September, 88 and denied that charges. By an order dated 15.11.88 the Sub Divisional Officer, Beawar was appointed as Enquiry Officer. This, according to the petitioner was done without application of mind to the reply filed by the petitioner. Evidence of the department as well as defence were recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has, of course, alleged that statement of some witnesses were recorded ex parte without any justification. The petitioner submitted written arguments on 12.6.89 and at the same time made request to the Collector for change of the enquiry. This request was turned down by the Collector (Land records), Ajmer vide letter dated 1.3.90. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report and on the basis of that report the Collector, Ajmer passed an order dated 14.8.91 and imposed a penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. The petitioner has asserted that a copy of the enquiry report was not made available to him before passing of the order of punishment.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment on several grounds. He has asserted that the enquiry has not been held by a legally appointed Enquiry Officer. He was not given opportunity of defending himself and above all a copy of the enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner before passing of the order of punishment. He was not given any opportunity to make representation against the enquiry officer. He has stated that on 25.7.91 Collector of Ajmer had given him opportunity of personal hearing. During course of hearing he had brought to the notice of the Collector the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramjan Khan and also of this Court in Tej Karan Jain v. State of Rajasthan to the effect that it is necessary to furnish a copy of enquiry report to the delinquent before an order of punishment can legally be passed, but both the decisions have been ignored by the Collector, Ajmer in passing the order of punishment.
(3.) This writ petition was admitted on 28.8.91 and having regard to the main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that copy of enquiry report was not given to him before passing the order of punishment, notice was given to the learned additional Government Advocate.;