Anil Dev Singh, C.J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in SBCW Petition No. 2248/1991 decided on 16th April, 2002.
(2.) The respondent was a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department. While working as Junior Engineer a charge sheet was issued to him. The statement of allegations reads as follows: "That the said Shri R.B. sharma while working Sub-Engineer in the Dattor Branch Division-I of the Rajasthan Canal Project prepared false Muster Rolls No. 406 of Rs. 4482/-, No. 407 of Rs. 4518/-, No. 419 of Rs. 5376 and No. 420 of Rs. 9408 and thus caused a loss of Rs.23,, 84/- to the Government. Following serious irregularities were observed: 1. Muster Rolls do not appear to have been marked from day to day. 2. Daily labour reports also do not appear to have been prepared from day to day. 3. Most of the thumb impressions are unidentifiable. 4. Thumb impressions look like finger impressions. 5. Under part I of the Muster Rolls the details of the material used are not given. Loop-holes for misappropriation of cement are thus left. 6. Enquiries made indicate that the Muster Rolls are more or less wholly false." Enquiry was held, in which evidence was recorded and an opportunity was given to the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses. He was also allowed to lead his evidence. The Enquiry Officer, after conclusion of the enquiry, exonerated the appellant. However, the Disciplinary Authority, disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer, imposed punishment of stoppage of 5 annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary Authority, the respondent filed a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 16th April, 2002 found that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the report of the Enquiry Officer containing its findings was not transmitted to the respondent and no opportunity of hearing was given to him to support the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer.
(3.) Accordingly, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that since the Departmental Enquiry initiated against the respondent pertained to the year 1983 and 19 years had gone by, therefore, it was not in the interest of justice to remand the case to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration of the matter, after complying with the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances which appealed to the learned Single Judge, the petition of the respondent was allowed and the impugned order of punishment dated 21st September, 1988 passed by the appellant Disciplinary Authority was set aside.;