Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 10.08.1999 (Annexure -9), whereby the petitioner's disciplinary authority imposed upon him, the penalty of termination from service and the order dated 08.04.2002 (Annexure -19), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of termination was dismissed and the termination order was affirmed.
(2.) FACTS in brief are that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as a Patwari at Tehsil Chhatargarh. A charge sheet under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules, 1958') came to be served upon the petitioner on 13.03.1992. It was alleged in the charge sheet that owing to incorrect reports made by the petitioner, various chunks of Forest land were wrongly allotted to Shri Shankar Singh and Shri Ram Singh. It was also alleged that owing to a few more incorrect reports made by the petitioner, in the capacity of a Patwari, lands which were not covered within the ambit of small patch, were illegally allotted as small patch lands to (a) Shri Pankaj Kumar, (b) Kishna Ram, (c) Tilok Singh, (d) Madan Singh, (e) Pratap, (f) Khinya Ram, (g) Jee Sukh, (h) Aswar, (i) Durga, (j) Bhadar, (k) Akha Ram and (l) Bhoma Ram. It was further alleged that the petitioner deliberately made the wrong reports in order to favour and to extend unlawful gain to these persons and, thereby caused corresponding loss to the Government. After following the requisite procedural formalities, the Deputy Colonization Commissioner, Chittorgarh was appointed as an inquiry officer to conduct the disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. During course of the proceeding, the inquiry officer was changed and the Dy. Colonization Commissioner, Bikaner was appointed to continue the inquiry. It is asserted in the writ petition that the inquiry officer did not conduct the inquiry fairly and did not follow the mandatory procedure provided down in the Rules of 1958. It is averred that on 11.06.1998, the Departmental Representative was not present before the inquiry officer. On that day, the petitioner was made to admit his signatures on the small patch allotment files. The Departmental Representative was directed to place on record of the inquiry, the relevant Girdawaris and other documents. The matter was adjourned to 20.07.1998 for recording department's evidence. The requisite and essential documents were not placed on record by the departmental representative despite specific directions of the inquiry officer. On 08.01.1999, the Departmental Representative was given last opportunity to place the Girdawaris and other documents on record and it was specifically ordered that if the needful was not done by the next date then the department's evidence would be closed. The petitioner was directed to submit the list of proposed defence witness on the next date which was fixed as 02.02.1999. The petitioner as well as the Departmental Representative were not present before the inquiry officer on the next date i.e. 02.02.1999. On that day, for the single absence of the petitioner, the inquiry officer directed the proceedings to be conducted ex -parte against the petitioner. The department was directed to file written submissions for establishing its case. The matter was adjourned to 18.02.1999. However, for some reason, instead of the scheduled date i.e. 18.02.1999, the file was taken up on 06.03.1999 on which date also, the case was adjourned and file was directed to be put up on an unspecified date during the proposed visit of the inquiry officer at Bikaner Headquarters. The file was then taken up at Bikaner on 05.05.1999. The order sheet records that on that day, the Departmental Representative requested the inquiry officer that as per the documents filed by the department, the charges were proved and accordingly an inquiry report be submitted to the disciplinary authority. On the very next day on 06.05.1999, acting at the request of the Departmental Representative that the charges were proved by the documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/38, the inquiry officer drew up a detailed inquiry report finding the petitioner guilty of all the charges. The petitioner has set up a specific plea in the writ petition that no intimation was given to him that 06.03.1999, 05.05.1999 and 06.05.1999 were the scheduled dates of hearing in the inquiry. On these dates, the inquiry proceedings were conducted behind the back of the petitioner without any intimation. It is further asserted in the pleadings that no witness was examined by the department during course of the inquiry so as to establish the charges. The petitioner has set up a further case that the allotments made on the basis of the disputed reports attributed to him were challenged by the State Government right upto the Board of Revenue. The challenge thus made was rejected and the allotments were sustained. Copies of certain orders passed in the revenue litigation instituted in relation to the disputed allotments have been placed on record.
(3.) THE disciplinary authority, however, agreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer passed the order dated 10.08.1999 (Annexure -9) dismissing the petitioner from service and treating the period of his absence from duty as leave without pay. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority by preferring an appeal which too was rejected by the appellate authority by order (Annexure -19) dated 08.04.2002. Hence this writ petition.;