PRAKASH TATIA,J. - (1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance challenging the judgment and order of this Court dated 23.5.1997 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner was posted as Naib Tehsildar at Bilara. The memorandum dated 24.8.1981 was served upon the petitioner informing him that it is proposed to hold enquiry under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules') on the charges mentioned in the statement of charge. The petitioner submitted reply on 24.9.1981. The Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur submitted enquiry report which is placed on record as Annex. 7. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 5.12.1986 was served upon the petitioner informing the petitioner that, after consideration of the enquiry report, it is proposed that it is a case of major punishment, therefore, before proceeding, the petitioner was permitted to make representation within 15 days and he was also permitted personal hearing. The enquiry report was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner was served with one more memorandum dated 3.1.1984 for proposed enquiry against him under Rule 16 of the Rules, for which the petitioner submitted reply on 11.4.1984 and the Additional District Magistrate, Kota was appointed as enquiry officer who, after completion of the enquiry, submitted the enquiry report. Thereafter, in this enquiry also a show cause notice dated 14.10.1986 was issued to the petitioner stating therein that the Board of Revenue does not agree with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer on charge Nos. 1 and 2 and the petitioner was informed that it is proposed to impose upon him a major punishment, therefore, the petitioner was asked to show cause why proposed punishment may not be imposed upon the petitioner. Ultimately, by common order dated 4.4.1987, the petitioner was punished with dismissal from service. This order dated 4.4.1987 of dismissal of the petitioner from service is placed on record by the petitioner in the writ petition which is Annex. 15. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the State Government by order dated 25.4.1989 (Annex. 17). The review petition of the petitioner under Rule 34 of the Rules was also dismissed vide order dated 7.6.1990 (Annex. 19). Therefore, the petitioner preferred this writ petition challenging the order of removal dated 4.4.1987 (Annex. 14), appellate order dated 5.4.1989 (Annex. 17) and order dated 7.6.1990 (Annex. 19) passed in the review petition with a prayer against the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. Reply was filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 and rejoinder was also filed by the appellant -petitioner to the reply of respondents No. 1 and 2.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge held that it is evident from the record that the reply which was submitted by the petitioner was duly considered by the authorities. It was also held that the orders of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and reviewing authority cannot be considered to be non -speaking orders. The learned Single Judge held that each of the charge along with evidence have been considered. So far as non -cross -examination of Noor Mohd., the witness of the department, is concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that if the petitioner has not cross -examined him, it was his option and, thereafter, the learned Single Judge held that in such type of misconduct of grave nature, no interference can be made in extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.;