Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, a challenge is laid to the order (Annex. 31) dated 21.8.1998 whereby the petitioner Jugal Kishore Mathur, a former RAS Officer in the State of Rajasthan, was removed from service and the order (Annex. 35) dated 3.4.2001 whereby the review application preferred by Shri Jugal Kishore Mathur was dismissed.
(2.) IT may be noted at the outset that Shri Jugal Kishore Mathur passed away during the pendency of the writ petition and thus his legal representatives were brought on record and have been permitted to pursue the instant writ petition. Assailing the validity and legality of the orders under challenge, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri M. R. Singhvi Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Bhavesh Sharma, Advocate contends that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat in the case. He submits that the so -called irregularities in the selection process were perpetuated at the instance of Shanta Vyas, Dy. Secretary in the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department at Bikaner and the responsibility thereof was fixed solely on the petitioner without any justification whatsoever. It is thus contended that the impugned order whereby the petitioner was removed from service deserves to be quashed. An alternative submission has been made that the punishment of removal awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the delinquency alleged and thus the punishment deserves to be reduced as no appropriate reasons were assigned by the disciplinary authority while imposing the extreme penalty upon the petitioner.
(3.) PER contra, Ms. Kusum Rao, learned AGC, appearing for the respondent State contends that a thorough and detailed preliminary inquiry was conducted, which resulted into the charge -sheet served to the petitioner. An inquiry officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry. The inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the CCA Rules. Number of witnesses were examined and the inquiry officer found all the charges proved against the petitioner beyond all manner of doubt. There were grave allegations against the petitioner of tampering with the record of the selection process, acting with partiality and even issuing a supplementary merit list thereby facilitating appointment of 7 such candidates, whose names even did not appear in the merit list. She thus, submits that the impugned order imposing penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner is just and proper and does not call for any interference. She relies on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Nand Kishore Shukla & Anr. reported in : 1996(3) Supreme 242 and contends that even if one of the charges is proved and is sufficient for imposing penalty, the Court will be loath to interfere with that part of the order. She thus contends that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;