G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who now stands retired from Govt. Service, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 28.1.75 (Ann. 28), order dated 29.11.77 (Ann. 29), order dated 18.10.79 (Ann. 31), and order dated 13.2.81 (Ann. 33).
(2.) THE first order is an order passed by the Director, Department of Ayurved. Govt. of Rajasthan Ajmer removing the petitioner from service on the basis of a Departmental Enquiry held against him in respect of the charge -sheet dt. 30.12.69. The second order is an order dismissing appeal of the petitioner. Third one is a communication regarding dismissal of review petition filed by the petitioner and the fourth order is also a communication regarding dismissal of his review petition. The charge sheet was served on the petitioner in the year 1962 vide notice dt. 1.11.62. It was superserded by another charge -sheet dt, 31.12.69 issued by the Director, Ayurved department. Enquiry proceedings were held in pursuance of charge -sheet dated 31.12.69. The petitioner claims that the enquiry was not held in accordance with the provisions contained under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules 1958. On the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show -cause -notice dated 8.8.72 to the petitioner and proposed a penalty of removal from service. The petitioner gave reply to show cause notice and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 28.1.75 and removed the petitioner from service. An appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 29.1.77 and review petition filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble the Governor.
(3.) MANY grounds have been raised in the writ petition challenging the order of punishment and subsequent orders passed on appeal as well as on review petition. One of them is that the order has not been passed in conformity with Rule 16(10) and Rule 16(12) of the CCA. Rules 1958. The other one is that Enquiry officer has not appreciated the evidence properly. The Disciplinary Authority did not apply its mind. Allegation of malafide have also been levelled against respondent No. 4 who held the office of Director Ayurved Department at the relevant time.;