G.S.Singhvi, J. - (1.) The petitioner who is working 3s Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, has challenged the legality of the order dated 18.5.84 by which penalty of stoppage of 5 grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on him and it has been ordered that he will not be entitled to anything more than subsistence allowance already paid during the period of suspension and the period of suspension will be counted as service for pension purposes.
(2.) The petitioner had joined service as Assistant Engineer in the year 1964. A memorandum dated 25.3.1980 was served upon the petitioner by the State Government proposing an inquiry against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The charge sheet and statement of allegations were enclosed with the aforesaid memorandum. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet on 29.8.1980. On 21.7.1983 an order came to be passed by the Government under Rule 13 of 1958 Rules and thereby the petitioner was placed under suspension. This order contained a stipulation that the Government has taken provisional decision to dis,miss the petitioner and two others from service. The petitioner protested against this order and applied for inspection of the record so as to get a copy of the decision of the Government regarding his proposed dismissal from service. By his application dated 5.8.1983, he has prayed that he may be furnished with the copy of statements filed during the preliminary inquiry, documents filed during the course of inquiry, conclusion and/or finding of the Commissioner, Departmental Inquiries and some other documents. However, copy of the findings and copy of the inquiry report were not furnished to the petitioner. By order dated 18.5.84 which has been impugned in this writ petition, penalty of stoppage of 5 grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted that in order to submit review petition under Rule 34 of 1958 Rules he again made an application/representation dated 6.7.84 for supply of various documents enumerated in the said application. He did not receive any reply in response to that application and, therefore, served a notice for demand of justice on 23.6.1985. The petitioner had made reference to some facts regarding merits of the charges. But since this writ petition is being disposed of on a pure question of law, I do not consider it necessary to refer to all facts pertaining to the merits of the charges.
(3.) The petitioner has assailed the order of punishment on various grounds specified in para 34 of the petition. One of the main contention on which the petition is founded is, that copy of the .findings and/or report of the inquiry officer had not been furnished to the petitioner and he was not given an opportunity of making representation before the impugned order of punishment was passed: This has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner has been denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself.;