D.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was serving as the Station House Officer at the Police Station, Kotgate, Bikaner in the year 1961. One Mst. Tulchhi died on March 19, 1961 and a dispute arose in respect of her properly between her daughter Smt. Meena and Radhey Shyam, who claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased. In order to avoid a conflict, some respectable members of the community to which the aforesaid parties belonged stored the entire property belonging to Smt. Tulchhi in a room in the house of the deceased and locked the same, so that the same may be handed over to the rightful owner as and when a decision was arrived at between the rival claimants in respect of the legal heirship. Smt, Meena submitted a complaint before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner City, on March 29, 1961, who directed Mansingh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City, Bikaner to visit the spot personally and prepare an inventory of all the articles of the deceased and produce the same in his Court. Mansingh accompanied by the petitioner went to the spot, collected all the valuable articles and cash in a box belonging to Smt. Meena, got the same sealed In presence of respectable persons of the community and pasted a paper slip thereon containing the signatures of the aforesaid persons, who were present on the occasion The box was brought to the Police Station, Kotgate, Bikaner and was kept in the 'Malkbana' of the said Police Station, although the key of the box was kept by Mansingh. On April 4, 1961 Mansingh prepared an inventory of the valuable articles and counted the cash which amounted to Rs. 5716/ -, at the Police Station, Kotage in the presence of motbirs and the aforesaid box was again locked and sealed, but the paper slip pasted on the upper lid of the box was this time signed by Mansingh and the petitioner only. Thereafter the box was again placed in the 'Malkhana' of the Police Station, Kotegate. On May 9, 1961 Mansingh sent for the box and the petitioner carried the same to the Court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner City in a Government jeep, but probably as arrangements could not be made on that date for the weighment of the articles, the Magistrate ordered the box to be produced before him on a subsequent date. However, Mansingh had in the meanwhile, broken open the seals on the said box, but as the case was adjourned be closed the box again, locked it and banded over the same to the petitioner for being kept in the 'Malkhana' of the Police station, Kotgate. While keeping the aforesaid box in the 'Malkhana', Head Constable Raghunath Prasad noticed that the box did not bear any seals and brought this fact to the knowledge of the petitioner, who directed him to put the seals of the Police Station, Kotgate upon the box. A paper slip signed by Mansingh was no doubt pasted on the upper lid of the box. Probably, as the dispute between the parties was taken to a civil court, the box remained lying in the Police Station, Kotgate for a long time and meanwhile Mansingh was transferred from there. Ultimately the Senior Civil Judge, Bikaner directed that the box including the valuables and cash contained therein be handed over to Smt. Meena and then Station House Officer, Incharge of the Police Station, Kotgate, Bikaner broke open the lock of the box for handing over the property contained therein to Smt. Meena. At that time it was discovered that the cash amounting to Rs. 5716/ - was missing from the box.
(2.) THE discovery of the aforesaid loss of cash amounting to Rs. 5716/ - from the aforesaid box kept at the Police Station, Kotgate led to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and Mansingh. A memorandum, charge sheet and statement of allegations were issued by the State Government to the petitioner on February 16, 1965. It was considered propos that a joint enquiry under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification; Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') be held against the petitioner and Massingh in respect of the aforesaid matter and the Governor of Rajasthan passed an order on August 17, 1965 directing a joint enquiry against the two delinquent officers. The Additional Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries was designated as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the joint enquiry against the petitioner and Mansingh. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the State Government, in which he found the charges proved against both, Mansingh as well as the petitioner and held that both of them were guilty of gross neligence and carelessness in the discharge of their duties. The Enquiry Officer was of the view that the penalty of reduction by two of stages in the time scale of pay with cumulative effect and stoppage of two increments for two years be inflicted upon Mansingh and the penalty of with holding of two grade increments with cumulative effect be inflicted upon the petitioner. The report of the Enquiry Officer was considered by the State Government and as a major penalty was proposed to be inflicted upon Mansingh, a notice to show cause against the proposed punishment was served upon him, as required by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The entire matter thereafter was referred by the State Government to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') for its advice, which agreed with the view of the Enquiry Officer that negligence and carelessness of Mansingh and the petitioner were fully established. However, the Commission advised that the penalty proposed to be inflicted upon Mansingh be reduced to stoppage of grade increments for two years without cumulative effect but so far as the petitioner was concerned, the Commission opined that the proposed penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The State Government ultimately agreed with the advice tendered by the Commission and by its order dated January 7, 1969 Mansingh was reduced by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect, while it directed the the stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect in case of the petitioner. The petitioner then submitted a review petition against the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued in the first instance that the petitioner was denied an opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to produce his defence. His further submission in this respect was that discrimination was practiced by the Enquiry Officer in the conduct of the proceedings in the disciplinary enquiry. It is alleged that adjournments were granted by the Enquiry Officer to Mansingh on several occasions merely for his asking, while an adjournment prayed for by the petitioner on June 20, 1967 was refused by the Enquiry Officer and ex parte proceedings were taken against him on that very date, which resulted in the deprivation of a fair opportunity to produce his defence. The case of the petitioner is that the proceedings of the departmental enquiry were adjourned on January 10, 1997 and March 1, 1067 merely on receiving a telephonic and telegraphic message respectively from Mansingh, without assigning any reasons for such adjournments, but the same facility of granting adjournments was not afforded to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer unreasonably refused an adjournment to the petitioner on June 20, 1967 when he had gone to call upon his ailing brother. It may be pointed out that the departmental enquiry conduced by the Enquiry Officer was not a proceeding in a court of law and the Enquiry Officer was not expected to write elaborate order sheets, incorporating there in the reasons why adjournments were granted. Merely because the reasons for granting adjournments by the Enquiry officer on January 10, 1967 and March 7, 1967 were not recorded in the order sheet it cannot lead to the conclusion that there were no reasons for Mansingh to seek such adjournments or that the Enquiry Officer granted adjournments to him merely for his asking. It is quite probable that Mansingh might have intimated the reasons on which adjournments were sought for by him on the afore -said two dates and the Enquiry Officer might have thought the same as sufficient and, therefore, he adjourned the departmental enquiry proceedings on the request of Mansingh. It further appears that on May 16, 1967 after the entire departmental evidence was recorded, the Enquiry Officer wanted to record the statement of the delinquent officer. The assisting officer of the petitioner, Shri Talwar, objected to this procedure on the ground that there was no provision for recording the statement of the delinquent officer This application was rejected by the Enquiry Officer and when he wanted to proceed further and record the statement of the petitioner, another application was moved on behalf of the petitioner praying for time to move the State Government for transferring enquiry proceedings to some other Officer. The Enquiry Officer allowed time to the petitioner to move the State Government for transferring the case and adjourned the disciplinary enquiry to June 20, 1967. It may be noted here that the petitioner was formerly posted at the Police Training School, Kishangarh and by an order dated June 6, 1967 he was transferred to C.I.D.I.B. Jaipur. By a subsequent order dated June 16, 1967 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, G.I.D.I.B. Rajasthan the petitioner was posted in CM, Special Branch of C.I.D. The petitioner submitted an application dated June 15, 1967 that he has been transferred from Police Training School, Kishangarh to C.I.D. I.E, Jaipur, but as he was proceedings to call upon his ailing brother, the proceedings in the departmental enquiry may be adjourned on June 20, 1967. On the next date of hearing i.e. on June 20, 1967 the Enquiry Officer held that there was no sufficient reason of the absence of the petitioner and directed that ex parte proceedings be taken against him and fixed the matter on June 22, 1967 for further proceedings. On the last mentioned date, the statement of Mansingh was recorded and he stated that he did not wish to produce any evidence in defence. On that date the petitioner was not present nor he produced any evidence in defence. The Enquiry Officer also noted in the order sheet that 'he petitioner did not produce any order of the State Government regarding the transfer of the departmental enquiry proceedings. He, therefore, closed the proceedings in the case for sub -mitting his report to the State Government. Thus it appears from the record that on May 16, 967 the petitioner objected to the recording of his statement by the Enquiry Officer and then he sought an adjournment on that date on the pretext that he would move the State Government for the transfer or the enquiry proceedings to some other officer. The fact that the petitioner did even move an application for transfer of the enquiry proceeding to some other officer oven upto June 20, 1967. as admitted by him in para 5 (k) of the writ petition, exposes the dialatory attitude of the petitioner. Thus it is apparent that an adjournment was sought by him on May 16, 1967 under a false pretext of making an application for transfer of the enquiry proceedings, yet the Enquiry Officer granted him time upto June 19, 1937 for that purpose. Moreover, the application of the petitioner dated June 15, 1967 (Ex. 12) for adjournment of the case was quite vague as it was not disclosed therein as to where the elder brother of the petitioner resided and as to when the petitioner went to meet him. The disclosure of such facts was necessary to enable the Enquiry Officer to adjudge the genuineness of the petitioner's request for an adjournment. Looking to the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, it was not unreasonable for the Enquiry Officer to take the view, when toe proceedings were next resumed on June 20, 1967, that the petitioner was avoiding to appear and was intentionally trying to delay the proceedings of the enquiry. It appears from the contents of para 12 of the revision application submitted by the petitione to the State Government (reproduced at page 26 of the writ petition) that on June 20, 1967 the Assisting Officer of the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and requested him personally to give cert in copies. Thus it cannot be accepted that the petitioner was unaware of the fact that his application for an adjournment was rejected by the Enquiry Officer on June 20, 1967, on account of absence of sufficient reason and that case was fixed for further proceedings on June 22, 1967, yet the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer, nor he took part in the proceedings of the enquiry on June 22, 1967. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner took charge of his post in CID, Jaipur on June 22, 1967 and as the proceedings in the departmental enquiry were also being conducted at Jaipur the petitioner could have appeared before the Enquiry Officer on that date. But no explanation what so ever has been furnished by the petitioner as to why he failed to appeared before the Enquiry Officer on June 22, 1967. In fact if the petitioner was at all serious to produce his evidence in defence he could have appeared before the Enquiry Officer on June 22, 1967 along with his defence witnesses or at least he could have submaitted an application on that date for setting aside the exparte order or seeking permission to produce his defence evidence. However, the petitioner did nothing of the kind which shows that he was merely trying to find an excuse for making a grouse of denial of opportunity in respect of production of his evidence in defence which was not well founded.
(3.) THUS , in the circumstance referred to above, it cannot be said that the order of Enquiry Officer dated June 20, 1967 holding the absence of the petitioner on the date as without sufficient cause was unjustified or unreasonable. I am, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was any denial of reasonable opportunity to the to the petitioner in the matter of production of his defence.;