G. M. LODHA J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition by Karan Singh who was Patwari in the services of the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner, Karan Singh, has been dismissed on February 2, 1982 vide an order (Annexure I ).
(2.) A departmental inquiry was instituted against the petitioner in the year 1975. In that inquiry, the two charges levelled against the petitioner and, after the inquiry they were found to be proved. According to the inquiry report, the inquiry officer was of the opinion that the following two charges were proved *** In the inquiry, the evidence of Laxman Singh, Raghunathsingh, Govind Singh and Sitaram was recorded on behalf of the department and the petitioner examined, himself, in defence. After submitting the inquiry report by the inquiry officer, the Collector Bundi served a show cause notice (Ex. XIV ). This notice is in Hindi language and the petitioner wants to interpret meaning that, it was a notice for 'removal' only and not for dismissal of service. The exact words used are, *** Shri D. D. Bajaj, the teamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the show cause notice used the words,
(3.) LSOK ls i`fkd djus dk fu'p; fd;k** it means that the petitioner has been removed and not dismissed, and the word used is 'removal' in Hindi and not 'dismissal, the show cause notice, itself, is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, against the principles of law. In the alternative, it was also argued that on the merits of the case, as the department could not prove the charges levelled against the petitioner, nor it could prove that any such amount in dispute which was alleged to have been misappropriated or recovered from the cultivators concerned, which was due and any demand order was issued; the inquiry, itself, held to be void and illegal being against the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience and so the impugned order of dismissal, by a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and mandamus, deserves to be set aside and quashed. It was also argued that in spite of the application filed by the petitioner, the record was not summoned and the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice was also not taken into consideration on account of being prejudiced and, no reasonable opportunity in defending himself was afforded to the petitioner which resulted in victimisation and harassment having irreparable and substantial loss. Shri S. B. Mathur, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the Collector, Bundi, controverted the above submissions of Shri Bajaj and, argued that notice to show cause was for 'dismissal' and not for 'removal. Shri Mathur has further pointed out that the Hindi word," ;