SINGHVI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged orders dated 15. 11. 86 (Ex. 1) and 18. 10. 89 (Ex. 3 ). By the first order the Collector (Land Records), Tonk has imposed a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cummulative effect and by the second order of appeal filed by him against the order of punishment has been dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner.
(2.) THE petitioner was served with a memorandum dated 16. 8. 80 by the Collector, Tonk for inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958. He submitted a reply to the charge sheet. Sub-Divisional Officer, Malpura was thereafter appointed as Inquiry Officer. On the basis of inquiry held by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malpura the Collector Tonk passed the order dated 15. 11. 86 and imposed penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cummulative effect in respect of charge which was held proved against the petitioner. THE petitioner has stated that a first information report (FIR) was also lodged against him and two others under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code but the police found that no case was made out against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of punishment. This appeal has been dismissed by an order dated 18. 10. 89 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer. The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment as well as the order of appeal on various grounds. However, it is not necessary to refer to other grounds against (sic as) the order of punishment suffers from a serious infirmity in as much as the petitioner was not furnished with the copy of inquiry report and was not given opportunity of making representation against the findings of the inquiry officer at the time of passing the order of punishment by the Collector, Tonk. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in, Union of India vs. Mohamad Ramzan Khan (1) and Tej Karan Jain vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (2) decided on 08. 2. 1991. In Mohamad Ramzan Khan's case their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that even after amended Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to supply copy of inquiry report to delinquent to give him an opportunity of making representation before any of the penalties specified in Article 311 (2) can be imposed on a government servant.
(3.) IN Tej Karan Jain's case (supra) it has been held that under Rule 16 (10) as it stands amended by notification dated 21. 6. 83 also it is obligatory for the disciplinary authority to give a copy of the inquiry report and to give him an opportunity or representation to the delinquent before any of the penalties specified in Rule 14 (iv) to Rule 14 (vii) can be imposed on a delinquent. In the present case it has not been shown by the respondents that the inquiry report had been made available to the petitioner before the order of punishment was passed. It is also not shown that any opportunity of making representation was given to the petitioner. The respondents have failed to show even this that copy of inquiry report was served on the petitioner that (sic) order of punishment as required by Rule 16 (12) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. In view of the above, it is that (sic not) necessary to consider other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. ;