G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Birdhi Chand presently an employee of the Jaipur Development Authority and he is holding post of Upper Division Clerk. A memorandum dated 7.12.82 was issued by the Additional Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority (for short JDA) and a departmental enquiry under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was proposed against the petitioner. This memorandum was accompanied by a charge -sheet and a statement of allegations. An enquiry was held against the petitioner Shri S.N. Tandan, retired RAS officer was appointed as Enquiry officer. Shri Tandon recorded the evidence of both the parties and then submitted his report. He held that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved. Secretary, JDA (Disciplinary Authority) accepted the Enquiry Report, He, however, recorded further finding that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 4000/ - from Chand Behari Lal Goyal and Suresh Kumar Gupta and this action of his was contrary to Rule 19(4)(i)(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1971 and that this amounted to corruption and misconduct. He, therefore, awarded a penalty of stoppage of 4 annual grade increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner vide his order dated 18.4.85. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, JDA. In the appeal the petitioner raised grievance that there was no charge against him with reference to violation of rule 19(4)(i)(a) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 and therefore, he had no opportunity to defend himself. The appellate authority observed that the action of not giving a new chargesheet and not holding a separate enquiry was only a technical matter and since the charge had been proved during the course of enquiry action could be taken by the disciplinary authority. It also observed that there is every possibility of the transaction being projected as loan in order to escape the charge of bribe. Appellate Authority, however, held that once disciplinary authority has felt satisfied and the charge is proved, then it cannot be said to be a serious irregularity that no fresh chargesheet was issued to the petitioner and no new enquiry was held. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed by order dated 23.5.89.
(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the order of punishment and the appellate order on the ground that the enquiry proceeding held against the petitioner is vitiated because the relevant documents were shown to the petitioner. He was not supplied that the copies of the statement of witnesses and copy of enquiry report. The petitioner had made a demand for supply of copies of these documents before filing of appeal but even then same as not made available to him. The further submission of the petitioner is that when the Enquiry Officer had found that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved and if the disciplinary authority wanted to disagree with the Enquiry Officer, he ought to have been given an opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation against the proposed action of the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has stated that the punishment has been imposed on conjectures and surmises and the appellate authority has also committed the same error. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents has submitted that the enquiry was held in accordance with the rules. The petitioner was given full opportunity of defending himself. After affording him full opportunity, the disciplinary authority has recorded a finding of guilt against the petitioner. The petitioner was fully aware of the charges levelled against him and it cannot be said that he has been prejudiced because no separate charge of taking money as loan was levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner knew about the case against him and he had full opportunity of making his submissions. He cannot plead that he was unaware of the allegations. It has further been stated that in fact the disciplinary authority has never agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
(3.) THE first question which required determination in this case is as to whether the Secretary JDA was justified in punishing petitioner for alleged violation of Rule 19(4)(i)(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 because no charge had been levelled against the petitioner in respect of his alleged misconduct with reference to the aforesaid rule.;