WAS, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing inquiry report dated 29.2.2000 which is communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 28.3.2000 and impugned order of punishment dated 1.6.2001 (Annex. 10) passed by the State Government against the petitioner in the disciplinary inquiry conducted against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958.
(2.) AS per facts of the case, a joint inquiry was conducted against the petitioner three other officials of the respondent Public Works Department by the DOP (Department of Personnel) vide Annex. 2 dated 25.4.1998 under Rule 16 of the 'Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short, to be called hereinafter as "the CCA Rules"). The petitioner and other delinquents filed their reply and, thereafter, the inquiry officer proceeded to conduct the joint inquiry against all of them, viz., petitioner Kishan Sunder Sharma, Store Keeper, R.L. Boliya, Superintending Engineer, Pramod Kumar Sharma, L.D.C. and Anil Kumar Shah, L.D.C. After conclusion of the inquiry the inquiry officer submitted its report on 29.2.2000 while holding all the delinquents guilty. The DOP sent a notice while annexing a copy of the inquiry report to inter alia the petitioner on 28.3.2000, by which, the delinquents were directed to furnish their reply within 15 days against the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer. The petitioner however made a request to grant some more time to file reply to the inquiry report because the inquiry report is running in more than 100 pages. The petitioner has placed on record Annex. 7 to prove the fact that application was filed by him to grant some time to file reply to the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer.
(3.) CONTENTION of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the Disciplinary Authority did not respond to the request made by the petitioner for extension of time, therefore, the same amounts to refusal on the part of the respondents to extend the time. The respondent No. 2 along with other respondents sent inquiry report to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for approval and the Commission approved the proposed punishment vide letter dated 24.3.2001; and thereafter, vide order Annex. 10 severe penalty was imposed against the petitioner whereby the whole pension of the petitioner and his all pensionary benefits are forfeited for his life-time vide the impugned order.;