- (1.) This is an special appeal by the State against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 15.1.1991 in a writ petition filed by the respondent.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the period November, 1985 to June, 1987, the respondent, who was Headmaster in Government service, was posted on deputation in a private school. Then in June, 1987 he was posted as Headmaster in Podar Higher Secondary School, Jaipur. Without going into the reasons as given out by the respondent, it may be stated that a charge sheet was issued to him on 8th June, 1988 framing seven charges against him, which were mainly for financial irregularities. The Addl. Commissioner II, Departmental Enquiries, was appointed as an enquiry officer and the respondent was informed that he should appear before him. However, he did not appear as directed but took time and thereafter exparte enquiry was completed against him and on the basis of this exparte enquiry an order of removal from service was passed and he was relieved on 12th March, 1990. This order of removal was challenged by the respondent in the writ petition. Several grounds were raised on account of which it was stated that the enquiry was vitiated. Particularly about another writ petition filed by the respondent were also given. This related to the petitioner's seniority and a direction had been given in the writ petition to decide the seniority within two months. The contempt petitions followed and in one of them it was also directed that the enquiry against the respondent be conducted from day to day and be concluded within one month.
(3.) The written reply to the writ petition was filed by the appellant giving circumstances in which the enquiry had to be concluded within a short period and also giving the circumstances in which the matter had to be proceeded with in the absence of the respondent. On the one hand the respondent was threatening the officers of the education department with action for contempt of Court and on the other hand he was not cooperating in the proceedings before the enquiry officer. In such circumstances, the enquiry officer had to proceed exparte.;