KUMAR, C. J. - (1.) TWO writ petitions were filed; one by Prahlad Singh and another by Gopa Ram challenging the legality and validity of order dated 8. 7. 1997 which were decided by common judgment and order dated 21. 4. 1998 by the learned Single Judge. These appeals involve common question of law and, therefore, both the appeals are heard together.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. Prahlad Singh, petitioner in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2892/98 was the Junior Engineer whereas Gopa Ram, petitioner in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2893/98 was the Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State. Certain famine works were sanctioned for different villages for which order was issued by the Collector (Relief), Jodhpur on 27. 12. 1985. This famine work was to be executed through the Irrigation Department. The petitioner Gopa Ram was Assistant Engineer of Sub-Division (II) and the work in dispute was in the area assigned to the petitioner Gopa Ram under whom petitioner Prahlad Singh was working as Junior Engineer. It was submitted that during the progress of the work, the work was to be checked by the Revenue Authorities, Zila Pramukh, Pradhan and the authorities of the Irrigation Department. It was also submitted that the measurement work used to be done every fortnightly by the Junior Engineer incharge of the area. The measurement of the work used to be tallied with the entries in the muster rolls and the same are used to enter in the measurement book. The measurement books are checked by the Assistant Engineer for passing the payment and after verification from the Assistant Engineer the measurements books were sent to the Executive Engineer for being forwarded to the revenue department for disbursement of the payment to the labours as per the muster rolls. The cheque or the demand draft was to be prepared in the office of the Executive Officer for sending to the office of the Tehsildar concerned for payment to the labours named in the muster rolls. It appears that the District Collector, Jodhpur received some complaints with respect to the work of the village Khejadli Kalan, upon which the District Collector, Jodhpur by order dated 7. 7. 1987 deputed Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur Shri Leela Ram Mehra to hold a preliminary enquiry in the matter. Shri Leela Ram Mehra submitted the report on 6. 4. 1988 to the Collector, Jodhpur recording finding that Gopa Ram, Assistant Engineer and Pokarram, Sarpanch of Khejadli Kalan connived and have committed misconduct of preparing forged muster rolls. On the basis of above report, joint enquiry was initiated under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 against Prahlad Singh and Goparam and a charge-sheet was issued on 18. 8. 1990 which is placed on record in both the writ petitions as Annexure 12. Two charges were framed against both the petitioners. The charge No. 1 against Prahlad Singh, Junior Engineer was to the effect that the petitioner Prahlad Singh prepared the false and forged muster rolls, verified them and made false entries in the measurement books and thereby misused the powers of his office. Charge No. 2 was to the effect that petitioner Prahlad Singh, while working as Junior Engineer in the Department of Irrigation. Sub-Division, Jodhpur, entered false names of Chowkidar Supervisor, Darkner, Mason in the muster roll No. 319860 and muster roll No. 319077 and verified the above muster rolls and entered false entries in the measurement books and thereby committed misuse of his post and power. Charge against above Prahlad Singh was explained repeating the above charge and it was further explained that on 16. 5. 1986 to 31. 5. 1986 and from 1. 6. 1986 to 15. 6. 1986, for the above periods, 18 false and forged muster rolls were prepared, verified and they were wrongly entered into measurement books whereas none of the above labour worked for the above famine work. Their names were falsely entered. Muster roll Nos. 23956 to 23962, muster roll Nos. 330338 to 330348, muster roll No. 158617 and muster roll No. 158634 were prepared by forgery and verified and wrongly entered into the measurement books. Charge No. 2 was explained by saying that muster roll No. 319860 and muster roll No. 319877 were prepared falsely by entering entries of Chowkidar, Supervisor, Darkner and Mason and it was wrongly verified and entered into the measurement books. It was also mentioned in the above details of the charge that the muster roll was issued for the period from 1. 7. 1986 to 15. 7. 1986 and that muster roll was entered in the measurement book No. 1017 at page Nos. 59 and 60. In muster roll No. 319860, names of 20 persons were entered but those names were struck off and, in place of names of labours, work `mason' was entered. There are some interpolations in the muster roll. All above was forgery committed by the petitioner Prahlad Singh.
(3.) FOR petitioner Gopa Ram, charge No. 1 was to the effect that when he was working as Assistant Engineer in the above famine work, the petitioner verified the false and forged muster rolls for payment and thereby committed misuse of his office. Charge No. 2 was further for the work to the same effect as given in charges No. 1. These charges were further explained by giving number of muster rolls in the explanation to the charges. In enquiry, the department examined 12 witnesses whereas the delinquent examined Magan Ram Purohit, Executive Engineer from the Irrigation Department and Purkha Ram who was the Sarpanch on the date of the enquiry and one Rana Ram. The enquiry officer submitted report dated 12. 12. 1995 that the charges levelled against the petitioners delinquent officers have not been proved. The State Government did not agree with the report of the enquiry officer and issued a notice dated 6. 8. 1996 which is placed on record as Annexure-37. The copy of the enquiry officer was also provided to the petitioners, is an admitted case. The petitioners submitted replies to the notice issued by the State Government which is placed on record as Annexure 39 in both the writ petitions. The State Government by order dated 8. 7. 1997 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement for both the petitioners with a direction to recover a sum of Rs. 49,087. 50, the copy of the above order was placed on record as Annexure 40. Being aggrieved against the above order dated 8. 7. 1997 (Annexure 40), the petitioners preferred writ petitions before this Court seeking relief of quashing of the order dated 8. 7. 1997 and for consequential reliefs. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents. Reply was filed by the respondents. After hearing arguments, the learned Single Judge by a common impugned order dated 21. 4. 1998 dismissed the writ petitions of the petitioners. The learned Single Judge held that the disciplinary authority, after analytical discussion and the material available on record, recorded the finding against the petitioners. To the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no reason has been given by the State Government for disagreement with the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the learned Single Judge held that show cause notice dated 6. 8. 1986 (Annexure 37) reveals that the disciplinary authority has given cogent and convincing reasons for his disagreement from the report of the enquiry officer. The learned Single Judge further negatived the arguments of the petitioners by which the petitioners submitted that the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. The learned Single Judge also held that the quantum of punishment is also not liable to be interfered with. At the same time, the learned Single Judge disallowed the preliminary objection of the respondents for dismissal of the writ petitions on the grounds of availability of alternative remedy. ;