S.C.AGRAWAL,J. - (1.) DEOKI Nandan Kulshreshta, the petitioner in this writ petitioner, joined Government service as Patwari in the Colonisation Department of the Government of Rajasthan on 18th June, 1956. He was subsequently promoted as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and thereafter, on his own request, the petitioner was transferred to the Sheep and Wool Department of the Government of Rajasthan and was posted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC), Accounts clerk in the said department. While he was working on the post of Accounts Clerk at the Sheep and Wool Extension Centre, Hanumangarh, District Churu, the order dated 25th June, 1968 was passed whereby the petitioner was transferred to the Sheep and Wool Extension Centre, Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer. On the representation of the petitioner, an order dated 10th July, 1968 was passed whereby the transfer order dated 25th June, 1968 was kept in abeyance. The aforesaid order dated 10th July, 1968 was however, revoked by order dated 25th October, 1968 and as a result the transfer order dated 25th June, 1968 was brought into force. The petitioner failed to join duty at Ramgarh and by order dated 4th December, 1968 he was placed under suspension. During the period of suspension the headquarter of the petitioner was placed at Churu. While the petitioner was under suspension, the petitioner was served with a charge -sheet along with a memorandum dt. 223 - 1969.The said memorandum was originally issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules'). But subsequently the said proceedings were converted to one under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and by order dated 15th May, 1970 the penalty of with -holding of five grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. The order of suspension dated 4th December, 1968 was revoked by order dated 19th April, 1969. By order dated 19th April, 1969 the order of suspension dated 4th December. 1968 was revoked with effect from the date the petitioner reported for duty at Ramgarh. On 13th February, 1970 the petitioner was served with another charge -sheet containing one charge under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, The said charge related to the petitioner having not reported at the headquarter at Churu and his having not obtained permission to leave headquarters since 23rd December, 1968. In the said charge it was also mentioned that after the order dated 19th April, 1969, the petitioner had failed to report for duty at the Extension Centre at Rajgarh. After the receipt of the said memorandum dated 13th February, 1970, the petitioner sent a letter (Ex. 6) dated 27 -2 -1970, wherein he prayed for some time to file a reply to the charge and also prayed for supply of copies of certain documents mentioned in the said letter for the reason that the said documents were necessary for the petitioner to prepare his reply to the charge. The case of the petitioner is that the copies of documents referred to in the aforesaid letter dt. 27th February, 1970 were not supplied to him. The petitioner, however, submitted his reply (Ex. 7) dated 24th March, 1970 to the charge which was levelled against him in the charge -sheet appended to the memorandum dated 13th February, 1970. By order (Ex. 8) dated 23rd June, 1970, the Director, Sheep and Wool Department of the Government of Rajasthan appointed Shri Shiv Laheri, Assistant Director (Admn.), Sheep and Wool Department, Government of Rajasthan, as the Enquiry Officer to conduct an inquiry into the charge. By memorandum dated 15th July, 1970 the petitioner was served with another charge -sheet containing two further charges Nos. 2 and 3. Charge No. 2 relating to leaving of the headquarter without permission during the period of suspension from 23rd April, 1968 to 19th April, 1969 and charge No. 3 related to the failure on the part of the petitioner to join duty at Ramgarh Extension Centre since 20th April, 1969. After receipt of the said memorandum, the petitioner addressed a letter Ex. 10) dated 30th July, 1970 whereby he requested for supply of a copy of the letter dated 28th May, 1969 of the District Sheep and Wool Officer, Churu, as the said letter was necessary for the petitioner to prepare a reply to the charges contained in the charge sheet appended to the memorandum dated 15th July, 1970. The case of the petitioner is that the copy of the aforesaid letter 28th May, 1969 was also not supplied to him. The Enquiry Officer held an inquiry on 16th December, 1970, 17th December, 1970, 2nd January 1971 and 4th January, 1971. During the course of the said inquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of the petitioner on 2nd January, 1971 and 4th January, 1971. According to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer prepared the inquiry report on 4th January, 1971. Since the Enquiry Officer did not accede to the request of the petitioner for a defence nominee to represent him during the course of inquiry and the request of the petitioner for examining defence witnesses, the petitioner submitted an application dated 4th January, 1971 before the Director, Sheep and Wool Department, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Director'), the disciplinary authority and in pursuance of the said application of the petitioner, the Director by his letter (Ex. R. 10) dated 13th January, 1971 asked the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 22nd January, 1971 and to produce the evidence which he wanted to produce before the Enquiry Officer. After the receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 13th January, 1971, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 19th January, 1971 to the Enquiry Officer whereby he requested for adjournment of the inquiry fixed on 22nd January, 1971 on the ground that the petitioner was ill. The Enquiry Officer did not accede to the aforesaid request of the petitioner for adjournment of the inquiry and submitted his inquiry report on 23rd January, 1971. After considering the report of the Enquiry Officer. The Director issued a show -cause notice (Ex. 11) dated 29th March, 1971 whereby the petitioner was informed that it was proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner and the petitioner was required to show cause against the proposed punishment. The petitioner submitted his reply (Ex. 12) dated 20th April, 1971 to the aforesaid show -cause notice. By order (Ex. 13) dated 3rd June, 1971, passed by the Director, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted an appeal to the State Government against the aforesaid order of dismissal. In the said appeal, the petitioner also requested that he may be given a personal hearing By letter (Ex. 15) dated 23rd June, 1971, the petitioner was asked to appear for personal hearing before the Special Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Rajasthan, on 24th June, 1971. The case of the petitioner is that on 24th June, 1977, the matter was adjourned for future date. In the meanwhile by order (Ex. 16), dated 28 June, 1971, the petitioner was informed that the Governor, after examining the relevant record, had been pleased to accept the advice of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and to uphold the decision of punishment of dismissal from service awarded by the Director. Sheep and Wool and has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner, Thereupon, the petitioner filed this writ petition wherein he has challenged the orders dated 3rd June, 1971 and 28th June, 1971.
(2.) THE writ petition has been contested by the respondents who have filed a reply to the writ petition The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the said reply filed by the respondents. The writ petition was earlier heard by Hon'ble Justice G.M. Lodha and the learned Judge by his order dated 8th November, 1979 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of dismissal dated 3rd June, 1971 on the ground that no inquiry was held into the charges mentioned in the memorandum dated 15th July, 1970 and that the charge No. 1 referred to in the memorandum dated 13th February, 1970 has been quashed by the Director while passing the order dated 3rd June, 1971 and that Rule 16 of the CCA Rules had been violated completely in so far as the charge -sheet dated 15th July, 1970 was concerned. While quashing the order of dismissal dated 3rd June, 1971 the learned Judge, however, observed that since the writ petition was being accepted on the ground of non -compliance of the provisions of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, it would not mean complete exoneration of the petitioner by this Court and that it will be open to the respondent to proceed under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules in respect of the charges in the charge -sheet dated 15th July, 1970 and to pass such appropriate orders as may be deemed proper after strict compliance of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. The aforesaid judgment was, however, reversed, in appeal (Special appeal No. 30 of 1980 decided on September 16, 1981) by a division bench of this court. In the said judgment of the division bench of this court, it has been held that the additional charges Nos. 2 and 3 dated 15th July, 1970 were nothing else than a clarification and specific mentioning of particular dates and the period for which the charges were levelled against the petitioner and that when the additional charges Nos. 2 and 3 were there, charge No. l dated 13th February, 1970 bad become redundant and that the Director, Sheep and Wool had not committed any error in cancelling the said charge. According to the decision of the division bench, the memorandum dated 15th July, 1970 was issued in a routine way and the petitioner could not claim any illegality on the ground that a fresh enquiry officer ought to have been appointed or that a fresh order should have been passed by the disciplinary authority in holding the enquiry, The division bench of this Court after setting aside the order of the learned Singled Judge, remanded the matter for decision on other points which were left undetermined. In pursuance or the aforesaid order of the division bench of this Court, the writ petition has come up for hearing before me.
(3.) SHRI Singhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the following contentions: (i) The petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity in as much as: (a) copies of the documents referred to in letter (Ex. 6) dated 27th February,l970 were not furnished to him and as a result, the petitioner could not submit a proper reply to the charges that were levelled against him, (b) the petitioner was not allowed to be represented by a defence nominee during the course of the inquiry and there has been violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 16(5) of the CCA Rules: (c) the Enquiry Officer interrogated the petitioner during the course of the enquiry without recording any evidence in support of the charge levelled against the petitioner, and (d) the Enquiry Officer did not afford to the petitioner an opportunity of adducing his evidence, oral as well as documentary, during the course of inquiry. (ii) the inquiry that was conducted in the charges levelled against the petitioner was vitiated on account of non -payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner during the course of the inquiry. (iii) There has been no proper consideration by the Disciplinary authority of the reply that was submitted by the petitioner to the show -cause notice served on him. (v) There has been no proper consideration of the appeal submitted by the petitioner to the state Government. ;