Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent appearing in person and perused the material available on record.
(2.) The case at hand is yet another classic example of stubborn and obdurate government officials failing to perform the duty enjoined upon them by law and resultantly embroiling unwilling citizens into unwarranted litigation, adding to ever increasing number of cases pending in the Courts.
(3.) Succinctly stated facts in brief are that the respondent No. 1 Dr. Surendra Mertia was appointed as C.A.S. (Medical Officer) in the Medical & Health Department of the Government of Rajasthan on 31.12.1982. Two disciplinary inquiries came to be instituted against him. Inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 was initiated against him vide order dated 30.6.1994. The said inquiry culminated with passing of an order dated 5.5.1997 whereby, the respondent was visited with punishment of withholding of 5 grade increments with cumulative effect and the absence period was treated as break in service. The second inquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules culminated into a penalty of censure being imposed upon the respondent vide order dated 11.7.2000.;