Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as Upper Division Clerk in the office of Collectorate, Dungarpur, was placed under suspension during departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short "the Rules"). The Sub -Divisional Officer, Dungarpur was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The chargesheet dated 27th Dec., 1985 was served but the same was withdrawn by order dated 1st Sept., 1986 in compliance of the Department of Personnel's letter dated 7th August, 1986 whereby a joint enquiry against Shri Shree Nath Sharma, District Supply Officer, Dungarpur and the petitioner was ordered. The memo dated 16th Feb., 1987 was served upon the petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner as well as Shri Shree Nath Sharma are from page No. 89 of the paper book whereas charges levelled against the petitioner are from page No. 91 to 93 of the paper book. Briefly the charges against both the persons were that on 10th Oct., 1985 when Shri Shree Nath Sharma was holding the post of District Supply Officer and Himmat Singh Bhati was working as U.D.C. both by conspiracy interpolated in the record to give benefit to one private dealer. The other charges No. 2, 3 & 4 are also relating to conspiracy and with respect to the consequential effect of their action. The detail of all the charges are not very much relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition. The enquiry was conducted and thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report, copy of which is placed on record as Annex. 17. The enquiry officer, after discussing the entire facts of the case and the documents placed on record and after considering statement of witnesses of the department and statement of witnesses produced in defence, found allegations No. 1, 2 & 3 fully proved whereas allegation No. 4 partially proved. The disciplinary authority in its order dated 30th August, 1993 agreed with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer but awarded punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner whereas awarded punishment of stoppage of 25% of pension for seven years quo the delinquent Shri Shree Nath Sharma on the ground that Shri Shree Nath Sharma retired during the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th August, 1993 (Annex. 19) passed against him by which the petitioner was punished.
(3.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner proved his case of undue -influence and pressure of Shri Shree Nath Sharma over the petitioner which compelled the petitioner to strike out something from the record and, therefore, the petitioner is not guilty of any offence. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards evidence of some of the witnesses wherein it is stated that the manipulation was made by Shri Shree Nath Sharma. learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is shockingly excessive and also challenges the order of the departmental enquiry on the ground of discrimination. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner should have been exonerated or in the alternative no different punishment could have been awarded to the petitioner from the punishment awarded to Shri Shree Nath Sharma.;