- (1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 2.9.83 (Annexure 4) passed by the disciplinary authority whereby a penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner.
(2.) In respect of an alleged delinquency of the petitioner, which he is said to have committed in the year 1966 during the period of his posting as Accounts Clerk in Panchayat Samiti Roopwas, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 1958 Rules) vide memorandum dated 21.7.77 issued by the Government of Rajasthan Department of Personnel. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge- sheet on 11.10.77. By an order of the Government dated 19.10.77 issued under Rule 18 of the 1958 Rules, a joint enquiry was ordered to be held against the petitioner, Shri Niranjan Singh, the then Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Roopwas and Shri S.C. Sharma, the then Overseer. The joint enquiry was held by the Additional Commissioner (I), Departmental Enquiries, Jaipur. A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner has co-operated with the other delinquents in the commission of irregularities. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer and his conclusion, the Governor imposed the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner,
(3.) In his writ petition the petitioner has stated that report of the Enquiry Officer was not made available to him before passing of the order of punishment. He was not given any notice regarding the proposed punishment and he had not been given any opportunity to submit his explanation in respect of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. It is also the case of the petitioner that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which had been accepted by the disciplinary authority, are perverse in as much as these findings are based on no evidence. The petitioner has also stated that no charge was levelled against him of having co-operated with other delinquents in commission of irregularities and he had no opportunity of defending himself in respect of that charge. Nevertheless the disciplinary authority agreed with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and punished the petitioner on the basis of that charge.;