N.N. Mathur, J. - (1.) - This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.9.2002.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated against the respondent Manak Chand Jain who was holding the office of Section Officer in the Administrative Office of the appellant University on the charge that in the application for casual leave, he mentioned wrong reason to the effect that this brother was seriously ill, while, the fact was that he was in detention being arrested in connection with a case for offence under Sections 468, 471 Indian Penal Code. Inquiry Officer found the charge proved. The Vice Chancellor accepted the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer and inflicted punishment of forfeiture of 50% of pay for the period from 2.7.1993 to 1.1.1994 and 25% from 2.1.1994 to 31.12.1996. The respondent was reinstated by the same order with effect from 31.12.1996. The said order was challenged by the respondent by way of petition under Article 226 fo the Constitution of India.
(3.) The learned Single Judge found that Inquiry Officer did not record the statement as deposed before him. He simply recorded the gist of the statement. No opportunity of cross examining the witnesses was given. The learned Single Judge also found that Disciplinary Authority in the matter of inflicting punishment travelled beyond the penalties provided in Part-IX of the University of Udaipur Employees (Service Conditions) Rules, 1976. The penalty of withholding of salary or part of the salary is neither permissible under the minor penalties nor in the major penalties in the Rules. In view of the finding aggrieved at, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 17.7.1997 (Annexure P/7).;