- (1.) WHILE working as Tehsildar, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 5/6/1984 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958' for short), and was imposed with the penalty of 'censure'. Aggrieved of the penalty, the petitioner preferred the review application, which was dismissed. Instituting the instant writ proceedings, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : - "i) the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the humble petitioner on duty and all consequential benefits including salary and other allowances for the period may kindly be allowed in favour of the humble petitioner because the charges leveled against him have been exonerated then their arise no question of punishment. ii) the orders Annexure -1, 2, 3 and 4 may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set -aside; iii) any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the humble petitioner"
(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the material facts necessary for appreciation of controversy, in the instant writ application, needs to be first noticed. The petitioner was charged for irregular allotment of land in the year 1983, while working as 'Tehsildar' along with the charges for action in violation of the government orders, and the relevant Rules with oblique motives as well as for having received illegal gratification to the extent of 12,600/ -. Petitioner was also charged for irregular and illegal activitities creating doubt as to his honesty and integrity. The enquiry officer returned a finding of guilt on all the five charges, and as a consequence, the disciplinary authority inflicted the penalty of dismissal from service. However, the Appellate Authority, partly allowing the appeal, exonerated the petitioner of four charges and held him responsible only for charge No.5 partially; for which a minor penalty of 'censure', was imposed. Remedy of review was unsuccessfully availed by the petitioner.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, argued that the finding arrived at by the Appellate Authority while holding the petitioner partially responsible for charge No.5, is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the prescribed procedure. The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing on the charge for which he has been found guilty leading to imposition of a penalty of 'censure'. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been punished twice over for the same charge as he has been deprived of two years salary and further, he was also inflicted with the penalty of "censure". Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The Appellate Aurthority without application of mind has framed a new charge i.e. "the petitioner was found as guilty of not maintaining the record properly", and has been inflicted with a penalty of 'censure'. Moreover, none of the charges, levelled against the petitioner were proved, and therefore, he was entitled to all the consequential benefits as per the provisions of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Services Rules. The petitioner was out of service for a period with effect from 5/4/1989 to 23/4/1991, therefore, the action of the respondents in depriving the petitioner of salary for the said period as well as inflicting the penalty of 'censure', is bad in the eye of law. Further, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing while considering his review petition and thus there is a patent violation of the principles of natural justice.;