ASOPA, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 31. 7. 1991 (Annexure 9) as well as order passed on 15. 1. 1993 (Annexure 11) whereby review petition submitted to the Governor has been dismissed being barred by time.
(2.) WHILE working as Superintending Engineer, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the `rules of 1958') vide memorandum dated 23. 8. 1986 for supervisory negligence over Mr. N. C. Garg, JEN and V. N. Sharma, Sub Engineer for the period of his working as Executive Engineer. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet which was examined and the said enquiry was converted into one under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 vide order dated 14. 10. 1990. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioner, punishment of censure was imposed vide order dated 31. 7. 1991 (Annx. 9) even after finding that though the petitioner who was charged with the responsibility for violation of Rules 70-75 of the PWF & AR is not proved, but was responsible for supervisory negligence under Rules 75-79 of the PWF & AR. Against the said order, the petitioner filed review petition under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1958 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 15. 1. 1993 (Annex. 11) being time barred by 37 days. In the meanwhile, the case of the petitioner had also become due for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer and his case was considered. Result of the same was kept in sealed cover. The petitioner has also retired from service on 31. 7. 1991. Submission of Mr. A. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been punished for violation of the Rules for which he has not been charged, therefore, the disciplinary authority has acted beyond the scope of the charge. Mr. Sharma further submits that the law on the charge that it should be specific and not vague, supported by statement of allegation or in the alternative, particulars must find place in the charge itself, is well settled. Here, in the instant case, petitioner was absolved of the responsibility of violation of Rules 70-75 of the PWF & AR, therefore, the disciplinary authority has acted beyond its power to consider violation of the Rules 75-79 of the PWF & AR for which neither any fresh memo of charge nor amended memo of charge nor an opportunity of making representation as well as personal hearing was given to him. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated being violative of the principles of natural justice. The submission of the learned Dy. G. A. is that the main charge is of supervisory negligence and it is not necessary to specify violation of each and every rule. On a query raised by this Court, learned Dy. G. A. has submitted that the principal charged person Mr. V. N. Sharma, Sub Engineer has been dismissed from government service after completion of enquiry in respect of the same incident and Mr. N. C. Garg, JEN has also been punished. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties.
(3.) THE charge against the petitioner was as follows: ``shri Gopi Ram Goyal while working as Executive Engineer in Sub Division IIInd V of Division VIII during the year 1977 was found responsible for supervisory negligence in the discharge of his duties as laid down in Rules 70 to 75 and Rules 195 to 199 of PWF & AR. Due to his carelessness and negligence Shri N. C. Garg, JEN misappropriated 3375 bags of cement in collusion with Shri V. N. Sharma another Sub-Engineer amount to Rs. 67,500/-, this causing a loss to the Governor for Rs. 67,500/- as indicated in the statement of allegation. '' In respect of the above charge, in the punishment order dated 31. 7. 1991 (Annexure 9) it has been mentioned as under: ;|fi ih-MCY;w- ,q ,. M ,-vkj- fu;e 70&75 vf/k'kklh vfhk;urk dks mrrjnk;h ugha Bgjkrs] fdurq os fu;e 75 ls 79 ds vurxzr i;zos{kh; ykijokgh ds nks"kh gsa** ;