RAFIQ, J. - (1.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner Karan Singh challenged the order of his dismissal dated 26. 12. 1992 (Annex. 25) with the prayer that the said order and the inquiry proceedings initiated against him may be quashed and set aside and further prayed that he may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Unfortunately, the petitioner expired during pendency of writ petition on 28. 11. 1999. This Court by its order dated 26. 05. 2003 allowed his legal representatives to substitute him as the petitioners. IN the present judgment however, reference to the petitioner wherever made should be construed as the original writ petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on the post of Patwari on 01. 08. 1956. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 29. 08. 1975 under Rule 14 of the Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (for short "the Rules of 1957" hereinafter ). Although from various charges in the charge-sheet the wordings of the charges are different but all of them convey the same meaning according to which petitioner issued false receipts to the farmers while realizing the amount of revenue and has not deposited the money with the treasury which constitutes embezzlement. The amount of recovery in relation to charge No. 1 was Rs. 16,181. 50 paisa, charge No. 3 was Rs. 5645. 21 paisa, charge No. 5 was Rs. 770. 58 paisa and charge No. 6 Rs. 1172. 61 paisa. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 28. 08. 1975. The petitioner represented against his suspension. His representation was decided vide order dated 5. 5. 1979 and he was reinstated in service. However, he was again placed under suspension by order dated 9. 07. 1979. The petitioner challenged the subsequent order of suspension by way of filing writ petition being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 365/1981, which was allowed vide judgment dated 26. 2. 1981, which was allowed vide judgment dated 26. 2. 1991 and the order of suspension dated 9. 7. 1979 was set aside. The petitioner has contended that during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and prolonged suspension, he was not granted benefits of pay fixation under various Revised Pay Scale Rules whereunder pay of the Government servants was revised four times respectively on 01. 09. 1976, 01. 09. 1981, 01. 09. 1986 and 01. 09. 1988 respectively. The petitioner was not provided the list of documents or list of witnesses at the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The Inquiry Officer did not fix any date, place and time for examination of the departmental witnesses and on such date was ever communicated to the petitioner. It has been argued that all the departmental witnesses were examined by the Inquiry Officer in his absence and the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine any of these witnesses.
(3.) THE petitioner for the first time came to know about conclusion of the inquiry when he was served with a show cause notice along with inquiry report. THE petitioner stated that during the disciplinary proceedings, the requested for assistance of Office Superintendent (suspended) Shri Chandmalji Jain vide his application dated 26. 2. 1978 but no assistance was allowed to him. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14. 10. 1981 proposing his removal from service. The petitioner submitted interim reply to the notice on 19. 10. 1981, in which he has stated tat complete proceedings have been conducted in collusive and illegal manner. Apart from denying charges on merits of the case, the petitioner also submitted that he was not afforded the opportunity to produce witnesses or any other evidence. In his reply he also stated that he could not file complete reply in absence of important documents and therefore requested for supply as many as eight documents which included the copies of inquiry proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer, copies of the complaints made by Laxman Singh and Bopal Singh, copies of statement of witnesses namely Govind Singh, Laxman Singh, Sita Ram, Ragunath and Karan Singh recorded by the Inquiry Officer. His application however was rejected by the Disciplinary Authority who by order dated 12. 12. 1981 granted him last opportunity to submit his reply by 28. 12. 1981. The petitioner therefore, under compulsion filed the reply and in the reply he again raised the issue with regard to non-supply of the aforesaid documents. The petitioner submitted that during the inquiry proceedings when he requested for inspection of the original documents, he was informed by Tehsildar that the records were in custody of the Police. Such records included the receipts which were allegedly forged/manipulated and over-written by the petitioner. The Collector, Bundi who is Disciplinary Authority informed the SHO, Keshorai Patan vide letter dated 11. 10. 1977 for showing the records to the petitioner on 3. 11. 1977. However, when the petitioner went to the Police Station, the records were not made available to him. The petitioner again requested the Collector but no action was taken on his request. In these circumstances, the petitioner was handicapped in defending his case before the Inquiry Officer/disciplinary Authority. The District Collector on the basis of such inquiry dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 8. 12. 1982. However, this order was quashed in his earlier writ petition No. 298/182 by a Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 9. 2. 1983 on the ground that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for removing him from service and instead, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of dismissal. ;