Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. The challenge in this intra -Court appeal is the order of Single Bench dt. 16.05.2012, whereby writ petition filed by petitioner/appellant, against order dt. 01.02.2011 imposing penalty of reduction in rank (degrade) against the appellant, after due enquiry, has been dismissed.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the appeal are that petitioner preferred a writ petition before Single Bench for quashing whole departmental proceedings, which culminated in the order dt. 01.02.2011, whereby penalty order was passed against him, after holding enquiry in accordance with the rules. The petitioner also prayed that respondents be directed to release all consequential benefits with interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioner was served with a charge -sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). There were two charges against the petitioner. The first charge, was in respect of regularization of land by Samjhota Samiti at the rate lower than the rate prevalent i.e. rate as per report of Sub -Registrar. The second charge, was in respect of land sought to be regularised, was subject matter of litigation followed by judgment in favour of Municipality. Charge No. 1 was partly proved. Charge No. 2 was fully proved. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of the enquiry officer and also the representation of the petitioner, passed penalty order dt. 01.02.2011 awarding penalty of reduction in rank -degrade.
(3.) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the appellant is that order of Samjhota Samiti regarding regularisation of land was set aside and was not acted upon. He also submitted that the petitioner was having no authority to put a note for Samjhota Samiti about low rate than the rate prevalent in respect of charge No. 1 and also in respect of judgment in favour of Municipality relating to land connected with charge No. 2 was levelled, therefore, enquiry Officer wrongly found the charges proved against the appellant. The disciplinary authority also committed an illegality in passing impugned order of penalty and learned Single Judge wrongly dismissed the writ petition.;