Pratap Krishna Lohra J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition, the petitioner has called in question impugned order dt. 29.5.1995 (Annex. 3) passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Pali, whereby pursuant to the inquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958'). The petitioner was found guilty of all the imputations levelled against him and was penalized by ordering withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. The Disciplinary Authority, while indicting the petitioner for the alleged omissions, has concluded that the petitioner was negligent in discharge of his duties, which has caused loss to the employer, and therefore, a sum of Rs. 732/ - is liable to be recovered from him. The brief facts of the case are that, while working as Range Forest Officer at Sojat, the petitioner was served with a memorandum dt. 25th May, 1994 under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 containing in all five imputations. In response to the said memorandum, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 1st February, 1995. The disciplinary authority thereafter considered the explanation tendered by the petitioner and by the impugned order dt. 29.5.1995 inflicted the penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect and recovery of a sum of Rs. 732/ -. Aggrieved by the punishment order of the disciplinary authority, the delinquent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, but the said effort of the delinquent has also proved to be abortive. The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on various counts.
(2.) MR . Pramendra Bohra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the explanation tendered by the petitioner has not been considered properly by the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order. According to the submission of Mr. Bohra, Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 requires meaningful consideration of the defence put -forth by the delinquent and after considering the same, it is imperative for the disciplinary authority to pass a well reasoned speaking order showing indictment of the delinquent for the imputations attributed to him. Thus, the sum and substance of the submission of Mr. Bohra is that the order impugned is not in conformity with the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 and the same is liable to be interfered with. Mr. Bohra further submits that even the appellate authority has not examined the matter from that angle and has simply concurred with the findings and conclusions of the disciplinary authority. Per contra, Mr. Siddiqui, learned Addl. Govt. counsel, has strenuously urged that the imputations made against the petitioner were grave and serious and the disciplinary authority, on considering the matter in its entirety, has found that all the allegations are proved against him and that being so the impugned order has come into offing, which requires no interference. Mr. Siddiqui has further urged that unlike enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 the procedure of inquiry under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 is in the nature of summary proceedings and the disciplinary authority is simply required to consider the explanation tendered by the delinquent officer and thereafter record its conclusions about the proof of delinquency and issue the order of punishment on the basis of gravity and magnitude of the misconduct. Thus, in these circumstances, Mr. Siddiqui submits that no interference with the impugned order is called for Mr. Siddiqui has also submitted that the order impugned has been upheld by the appellate authority, and therefore, at this stage scope of judicial review is very much limited and no interference is called for.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned as well as the appellate order.;