VYAS, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated 30. 11. 1995 (Annex. 3), 03. 5. 1996 (Annex. 4) and 23. 10. 1997 (Annex. 5) may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the instant petition are as follows: The petitioner while working as L. D. C. under the respondent No. 3, was served with a memorandum alongwith charge sheet dated 6. 10. 1995 (Annexure 1) under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) The petitioner filed the reply dated 10. 11. 1995 (annexure 2) to the above mentioned charge sheet within the time prescribed by the respondent No. 3, denying the charge levelled against him, on the ground that Laxman Singh, UDC (Force-Clerk) was on leave w. e. f. 16. 5. 1995 to 22. 8. 95 and there was no order in writing to took after his work, in his absence. It was further replied that no handing over taking over the charge has taken place between the petitioner and Laxman Singh. It was also replied that the work of Cashier was also given to the petitioner as an additional work and he was carefully doing the said work alongwith his daily routine official. It was alleged in the reply that the application was submitted by Sh. Magna Ram, Constable, through proper channel, for forwarding the same to the higher authorities, i. e. Assistant Sub-Inspector, Intelligence. It was also alleged that no specific date and name of the examination has been shown on the said application has been shown on the said application. Even if the said application is related to the examination and was also urgent in nature, then there was an option for magna Ram, Constable to take the necessary permission from the Commandant and not to submit the same as a routine application.
(3.) LASTLY, the petitioner averred in his reply that he was no having any ill-will in his mind against said Magna Ram, Constable and has not intentionally kept his application pending. He prayed that the charge levelled against him is baseless and devoid of merits. The respondent No. 3 vide order dated 30. 11. 1995 (annex. 3) imposed the penalty upon the petitioner of withholding of the one grade increment without cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the order Annexure 3, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2 and the same was rejected vide order dated 3. 5. 1996 (Annexure. 4 ). ;