Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Mr. Premsukh Somani has filed this writ petition in the year 2001 in the second round of litigation after the earlier writ petition namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4675/2000 Prem Sukh Somani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. was withdrawn by him with a liberty to file afresh and the present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: - "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction: - I/a. The impugned order Annexure/6 dated 30.6.93 may be declared illegal and quashed. I/b. The impugned order Annexure -12 dated 16th December, 1995, may kindly be quashed and be declared illegal. II. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as may be considered proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be made. III. Cost of the writ petition be allowed to the Petitioner."
(2.) THE petitioner was removed from the services as Development Officer while serving the respondent Panchayati Raj Department by the impugned order Annexure -6 dated 30.06.1993 after holding an inquiry against him which was a joint inquiry against one Dr. Murlidhar Upadhayaya, the then Veterinary Doctor, Mr. Gautam Mal Bohra, Inspector (Office) and the present petitioner serving as Development Officer in the Panchayat Samiti Sagwada, Udaipur on the alleged ground that in collusion with the other officials of the Panchayat Samiti, he had disbursed loans to the various persons for the purpose of sale and purchase of the animals in a camp held in the said Panchayat Samiti. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the explanation given by the petitioner that at the time of said camp for the purpose of sale and purchase of the animals, the petitioner had, in fact, gone to attend the meeting of the Zila Parishad and was not even present at the site in question. It is submitted that the present petitioner had signed the proceedings, for holding the camp and for disbursement of the loan, on the basis that the other delinquent officials had already prepared and signed the proceedings in which the Doctor who is said to have verified the papers relating to the loans and examined the animals had also put his signatures and on the basis of such signatures by the petitioner, the inquiry in question was initiated against him and in this process, a notice Annexure -10 dated 31.05.1994 was sent to the petitioner to which the petitioner has given a detailed explanation in the form of reply but by the impugned order, the inquiry was concluded against the petitioner and the respondent Disciplinary Authority formed an opinion that looking to the nature of negligence and the delinquency proved against the petitioner, the punishment of withholding of the two grade annual increments was sufficient but later -on on the basis of the advice/opinion given by the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission ('RPSC') vide communication dated 23.04.1991, the Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the advice/opinion given by the respondent RPSC, enhanced the said punishment from withholding of two grade annual increments to that of removal from the service and passed the impugned order dated 30.06.1993. The review application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.06.1993 also came to be rejected with the approval of His Excellency the Governor under the signatures of Deputy Secretary to the Government vide Annexure -12 dated 16.12.1995. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayers above quoted.
(3.) MR . Manoj Bhandari appearing for the petitioner has made the following contentions before this Court: - (i) That under Rule 15(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules of 1958'), the Disciplinary Authority was not even required to consult the RPSC since it had already formed an opinion of imposing the punishment only to the extent of withholding of two grade annual increments and, therefore, there was no necessity of consulting the respondent RPSC; (ii) That on the purported advice/opinion given by the respondent RPSC, the punishment of withholding of two grade annual increments was enhanced to that of removal from service and the copy of the alleged opinion/advice of RPSC has even not been produced on record by the respondents nor supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority was not bound by the same but by the impugned order dated 30.06.1993, without assigning any reasons or showing any independent application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority, the said Disciplinary Authority has enhanced the punishment from withholding of two grade annual increments to that of removal from service. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2002(2) RLW 1173 and the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. M.C. Saxena : (1998)3 SCC 385.;