Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 11.4.2001 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the order dated 9.3.1995 (Annex.3) passed by the Board of Revenue (respondent No. 2) by which penalty of stoppage of one grade increment was imposed on the petitioner without cumulative effect and the order dated 19.8.1998 (Annex.6) passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (respondent No.1) by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 25.11.2000 (Annex.7) by which review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed be quashed and set aside.
(2.) The facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC on 19.4.1957 and thereafter he was selected to the post of Inspector, Land records and joined as such on 24.7.1967 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Sadar Kanungo on 10.11.1976 and then as Tehsildar on 4.6.1983 and he stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.4.1987. (ii) That when the petitioner was working as Tehsildar and was posted at Banswara, he was served a charge-sheet dated 15.7.1992 (Annex.1) under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958. (iii) That In the charge-sheet dated 15.7.1992 (Annex.1) two charges were levelled against the petitioner which are as under: (i) Charge No. 1 was that the petitioner had verified mutation No. 911 on 29.12.1989 while working as Tehsildar, Banswara. That mutation was entered in pursuance of order of Subdivisional Officer, Banswara dated 16.8.1989. It was alleged that the mutation was wrongly entered by the petitioner as the land in question belonged to a Schedule Caste person. (ii) Charge No. 2 was that orders of land conversion dated 27.4.1989 (4 in number) and orders dated 24.5.1989 and 24.5.1989 were sent to the petitioner and the same were to be entered, but they were kept unattended and thus this act of the petitioner showed negligence on his part. (iv) Reply to the charge-sheet (Annex.1) dated 15.7.1992 was filed by the petitioner. (v) That the Board of Revenue through order dated 3.9.1995 (Annex.3) found both the charges proved against the petitioner and imposed penalty as stated above. (vi) Aggrieved from that order dated 3.9.1995, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Secretary, Revenue Department and the Secretary, Revenue Department through its order dated 19.8.1998 (Annex.6) dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. (vii) Against the order dated 19.8.1998, the petitioner also filed a review petition which was also dismissed through order dated 25.11.2000 (Annex.7). Hence, this writ petition with the above mentioned prayer.
(3.) Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their main submission is that the charges were rightly found proved against the petitioner.;