Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) In the present writ petition the petitioner has sought a direction for quashing the termination order dated May 13, 2002.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner while working as Lecturer in Political Science Govt. College Jhalawar served with a memorandum dated October 1, 1991 alleging therein that the petitioner contracted second marriage during the life time of his first wife and the second charge was that he appeared in LL.B. 1st Year Examination without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. The petitioner averred in the writ petition that he denied the charges at every stage. The enquiry officer was appointed on September 16, 1997 and he submitted enquiry report on May 3, 2000. The petitioner was supplied with the enquiry report by the communication dated May 10, 2000. The petitioner thereafter submitted reply to the enquiry report vide his communication dated July 26 and July 27, 2001. In respect of charge No. 1 the petitioner averred in the reply that this charge was baseless and there was no acceptable evidence on record to prove the same. The enquiry officer prepared the report under bias in violation of the Rules. In relation to second charge the petitioner averred that the adverse remarks in the ACRs, regarding appearing in LL.B. Part I Examination without permission was expunged. The respondents did not consider the explanation of the petitioner and vide order dated May 13, 2000 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service.
(3.) The respondent No. 1 filed return to the writ petition and averred that the allegations made against the petitioner were found proved after conducting enquiry. It was averred that the petitioner was provided full opportunity to examine the record. The petitioner examined the record on December 16, 1991 and demanded additional documents and the same were collected after great efforts in the year 1995 and the petitioner was informed vide letter dated September 27, 1995 to examine the same. The petitioner was informed vide letters dated 14.2.1996, 15.4.96, 6.5.1996 to examine the record,. thereupon he examined the record from February 26, 1996 to February 28, 1996. The petitioner demanded additional documents but he did not submit reply to the allegations. The enquiry officer was appointed on September 16, 1997. The enquiry officer submitted enquiry report on May 3, 2000. The delay in the enquiry was only on account of the fact that the petitioner did not appear on November 6, 1997, November 22, 1997, December 9, 1997, December 26, 1997, February 5, 1998, January 6, 1999, March 12, 1999, May 7, 1999, June 17, 1999, August 6, 1999, August 23, 1999, September 20, 1999 and October 8, 1999. The petitioner submitted reply to the enquiry report on July 26, 2001. The facts stated in the reply were examined and analysed by the disciplinary authority on merits and on finding the allegations proved against the petitioner after looking into gravity of the charges found proved against him passed the punishment order dated May 13, 2000.;