- (1.) THE petitioner, Smt. Dhapu Bai widow of late Sh. Kanhaiylal Dadhich, her husband who expired on 06.11.1996, has approached this Court by way of present writ petition for claiming the retiral dues in respect of her husband's service of the respondent Revenue Department as 'Patwari'.
(2.) THE earlier round of litigation by the petitioner's husband, terminated in favour of the petitioner vide the order dated 18.11.1996 by the learned Single Judge of this Court deciding the writ petition filed by the petitioner's husband being SBCWP No.431/1986 - Kanhaiyalal Vs. State & Ors., in the following terms: - "The services of the petitioner were terminated for proved misconduct on 1.5.85. Admittedly, a copy of the report of Enquiry Officer was not supplied to the petitioner. The consequence of such non -supply is obvious. The petitioner has been materially affected in his right to make effective appeal before the Board of Revenue. The order, therefore, is challenged as basically vitiated on this ground. Shri M.R. Singhvi, counsel for the respondent submits that no such contention is raised nor the petitioner has proved any material injury to him by non -supply of the copy. The petitioner is guilty of a serious misconduct of accepting illegal gratification of a sum of Rs.1100/ -. In such circumstances, there is no ned to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 and issue a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioner. The position as regards non -supply of the report or material document has been considered by the Supreme Court and now an authority to pronouncement the Supreme Court exists in the judgment of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderbad Vs. B. Karunakar reported in JT 1993 (6) SC 1. In this view of the law, the only recourse permissible in the instant case. According to him, is to quash the appellate order dt.29.11.85 passed by the Board of Revenue and direct the respondents to supply to the petitioner a copy of the enquiry report on which the order of termination is based. On receipt of termination is based. On receipt of the copy, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh appeal before the Board of Revenue which the Board of Revenue which the Board of Revenue shall decide in accordance with law. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Order dt. 29.11.85 is set aside with the directions as aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs." Against the order of the learned Single Judge deciding the writ petition filed by the petitioner's husband, the Division Bench appeal filed by the State, also came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 06.02.2008. The said order is also quoted herein below for ready reference: - "D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL [WRIT] No.98/1997 [STATE OF RAJ. and ORS. VS. KANHAIYA LAL] Date of order: 06.02.2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY, HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Dy. G.A., for the appellant. Mr. B.N. Kalla, for the respondent. *** Heard counsel for the parties. It is admitted position that by now the writ petition whose was directed to be considered at the appellate stage is dead. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant said that in this view of the matter he does not want to press this appeal. This appeal accordingly is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/ - Sd/ - (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ."
(3.) AFTER the death of petitioner's husband, the Enquiry Report was supplied to her and a fresh appeal was filed by her before the Board of Revenue, which was responded vide the order/communication Annex.8 dated 31.03.2009 to the effect that on account of death of petitioner's husband, the enquiry proceedings should be treated as 'dropped'. The said letter of the Registrar, Board of Revenue, dated 31.03.2009, addressed to the District Collector (Land Revenue), Chittorgarh, is also quoted herein below for ready reference: - JUDGEMENT_85_TLRAJ0_2014.jpg;