G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 12. 11. 1972 and 28. 9. 1973. The PETITIONER is an employee of the Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation constituted under the provisions of Agricultural Produce (Development and Ware Housing Corporation) Act, 1956, in the year 1957.
(2.) WHILE working at Bhinmal, the petitioner was placed under suspension and was served with a memorandum dated 18th April, 1969. Thereafter, the petitioner was punished by stoppage of one grade increment. However, this memorandum and inquiry is under challenge in this case. The petitioner while he was working as Incharge, Mandawar Mahuwa Road, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 28. 10. 1971 and enquary laterou was conducted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956. Shri Manmohan Chand Mathur was appointed as Enquiry Officer. After the enquiry was over, the Managing Director of the Corporation passed an order stopping 3 grade increments with cumulative effect, vide order dated 11. 12. 1972, which reads as under:- "shri Hari Narain Goyal was placed under suspension on 28. 10. 71, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. On careful consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer and the relevant record following charges are proved against Shri Goyal:- 1. Shri Goyal was careless and negligent in the discharge of his duties in as much as he allowed Shri Durga Lal unauthorised access to his residence/office resulting in unauthorised removal of A/s from Godown No. 4 by Shri Durga Lal. 2. Shri Goyal did not keep the wheat bags in Godown No. 4 in the countable position and thus failed to discharge his duties properly. Keeping in view the past services and young age of Shri Goyal a lenient view has been taken and a penalty of stoppage of 3 grade increments with cumulative effect is imposed on him. He is reinstated on the post of T. A. with immediate effect. He will get only subsistence allowance and other allowances thereon for the period he remained under suspension. He will be treated as on duty for the period he remained under suspension. Sd/-MANAGING DIRECTOR" An appeal was filed before the Chairman of the Corporation. The Chairman reduced the penalty to 2 grade increments with cumulative effect instead of 3 grade increments. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Enquiry Officer was convinced that none of the charges was found to be proved against the petitioner, but the Managing Director dis-agreed and held that some of the charges were proved. In such circumstances, when there was disagreement, it was necessary for the disciplinary authority to send a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer alongwith the reasons for disagreement, but this was not done and that has vitiated the enquiry proceedings. It was also argued that since the stoppage of grade increments was with cumulative effect, it tentamounts to major penalty and therefore, it was necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to send a copy of the report and adopt the procedure for imposition of major penalty thereafter, which has not been done.
(3.) MR. Singhvi made a further grievance that according to the Rajasthan Service Rules, after the expiry of six months of suspension, a Government servant is entitled to 3/4th of the salary as subsistance allowance, but in this case it was refused on untenable grounds. Mr. Sharrna submitted that so far as the application of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules to the Corporation is concerned it cannot be disputed unless separate rules are framed by the Corporation itself for disciplinary proceedings. According to him, the charges were proved and therefore, the imposition of penalty was justified. However, he could not justify the imposition of penalty in the form of stoppage of 2 grade increments with cumulative effect without following the procedure under Rule 16 of the CCA. Rules and more so when there was dis-agreement of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary Authority. Ave given a thoughtful consideration to the entire matter convased before me. Under the CCA. Rules, which are alleged to be application to the Corporation undisputedly, Rule 16 provides the elaborate procedure for major penalty. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, the procedure of Rule 16 of the CCA. Rules was sought to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority and also the Enquiry Officer. A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner and a reply was called and in order Ex. 3, dated 5. 1. 1972, it has been mentioned expressely that the enquiry under Rule 16 is being held. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the respondents to follow the procedure provided under Rule 16 of the CCA. Rules. ;