GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 5. 2. 92 with a prayer that the order dated 28. 10. 91 (Annex. 4) passed by the Director, Sanskrit Education, Jaipur imposing the penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect as also the recovery of the amount of advance as a measure of penalty be quashed and the petitioner be exonerated of the charges levelled against him.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: (i) The petitioner was appointed as a teacher on 3. 9. 86 by the Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan Jaipur and was posted at Ratangarh in Government Upper Primary School, Ratangarh and thereafter in July, 1987 he was transferred to the Government Upper Primary Sanskrit School, Bebar (Churu ). (ii) While posted at Ratangarh, the petitioner was served with a memorandum along with a charge-sheet and statement of allegations on 13. 2. 1987. The first charge related to indiscipline and the second charge related to beating with the head- master and 3rd charge related to misuse of funds of the School. Thus, the petitioner was facing enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereafter referred to as the Rules of 1958 ). (iii) The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge- sheet before the Enquiry Officer who was Dy. Director, Sanskrit Education (Dota Division), Jaipur. IT has been averred by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer did not hold enquiry in legal and fair manner and according to the Rules and he did not afford proper and adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and copy of enquiry report was not served on him. (iv) The Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur who was the Disciplinary Authority in the case of the petitioner on the receipt of report of the enquiry did not hear the petitioner nor he was given copy of enquiry report nor afforded him any opportunity to make representation against the enquiry report and by a cryptic and two lines order dated 28. 10. 1991 (Annex. 4) penalty was imposed on the petitioner as stated above. Hence, this writ petition. In this writ petition the order dated 28. 10. 1991 has been challenged on various grounds and one of the ground is that copy of enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner before imposing penalty and further more all the methods adopted by the Enquiry Officer for conducting enquiry was against the Rules and thus, the whole proceedings of enquiry stand vitiated and should be set aside. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 on 4. 3. 99 and in that reply, it was averred by the respondents that so far as enquiry report is concerned, the petitioner had already been informed of the facts of the enquiry and since the petitioner did not produce any evidence, therefore, the order of punishment dated 28. 10. 91 Annex. 4 was rightly passed by the respondent No. 2. Hence, the writ petition be dismissed. I have heard both and perused the record. It may be stated here that in the reply filed by the respondents, there is no mention of the fact that copy of enquiry report was ever given to the petitioner nor copy of enquiry report has been filed with the reply.
(3.) I have perused the impugned order dated 28. 10. 91 (Annex. 4) and from perusing the same, it appears that the petitioner faced enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and three charges were levelled against him as mentioned in the charge-sheet (Annex. 2) and thereafter enquiry officer was appointed. In the order dated 28. 10. 1991 (Annex. 4), it is written that on the basis of report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, respondent No. 2 had come to the conclusion that the petitioner did not lead any evidence to defend the charges levelled against him and thus, the petitioner was not in a position to prove his innocence and, therefore, he was found guilty and accordingly punishment was imposed on him as stated above. Thus a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 28. 10. 91 (Annex. 4), clearly shows that burden of proving the charges was put on the petitioner (delinquent officer) and since there is no enquiry report in this case, therefore, it cannot be said as to what type of evidence was led by the Department. In my considered opinion, reasons have to be given in support of an order and since in this case no enquiry report has been produced, therefore, it cannot be said as to what has been held by the enquiry officer and in absence of that, the impugned order dated 28. 10. 91 (Annex. 4) which clearly speaks that the burden was on the delinquent officer (petitioner) to rebut the case, cannot be sustained. ;