- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Collector, Jaipur dated 8. 10. 64, whereby the Collector found the Patwari guilty of having received Rs. 5/- per bigha as illicit gratification for allowing certain farmers of village Bilorakhurd to cultivate Siwaichak land. Similarly, he was found guilty of having received a sum of Rs. 300/-from Badriya Banjara, sum of Rs. 35/- from one Mitra and a sum of Rs. 65/- from Gyarsa Patel. The departmental enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa and his report was submitted on 13. 11. 1963. Having gone through the report of the enquiry officer, the Collector issued a show cause notice to the Patwari as to why he should not he dismissed from Govt. service. The reply of the Patwari was received on 21. 7. 64.
(2.) HAVING examined the preliminary report of the S. D. O. as well as the reply of the Patwari, the Collector came to the conclusion that the Patwari was guilty of receiving illicit gratification. The Collector has observed that if the unauthorised occupation of Siwaichak was not with the connivance of the patwari, he should have reported against such occupation. The witnesses have stated that they had paid the patwari Rs. 5/- per bigha and such other amounts on being assured by him that they would get khatedari rights. There was nothing to disbelieve the statements of these witnesses. In the result, therefore, the charges framed against the patwari were held to be proved and the Patwari was ordered to be dismissed from Government service. The main point urged by the Patwari is that the unauthorised occupations had taken place as far back as 1952 whereas he was posted in the circle in 1961. He could not, therefore, be held guilty of having allowed the trespassers to occupy government land. As will be seen this contention of the Patwari has already been met by the Collector in his impugned order. I entirely agree with the observation of the Collector that the Patwari was duty bound to report the trespassers. In having failed to do so, the conclusion is irresistible that the Patwari connived at these trespasses. This fact coupled with the statements of the witnesses from whom the Patwari received illicit gratification, conclusively establishes the charges framed against him. Thus, so far as the question of f?ct is concerned, the evidence against the Patwari is conclusive and I find no substance in his defence that he is the victim of a conspiracy. The next argument advanced by the Patwari, however is of a different character. It relates to the procedure followed in this enquiry. It is his contention that no Enquiry Officer was appointed as such by the Collector in this case nor was the charge sheet signed by the Collector. It is also urged that in the show cause notice, it was stated by the Collector that an Enquiry Officer had been appointed in this case, which is against facts. The question which, therefore, falls for determination before me is whether or not the failure of the Collector to appoint an Enquiry Officer and to sign the charge sheet is fatal to the enquiry. To determine this question, a reference will have to be made to rules 15 and 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules. The relevant portion of rule 15 (1) reads as follows - "in respect of the State services, the Government or the authority specially empowered by the Govt. in that behalf; in respect of the subordinate service, the Head of Department or the authority specially empowered by the Head of Department with the approval of the Govt. and in respect of the ministerial services and Class IV services, the Head of Office shall be authorised to inflict all penalties specified in Rule 14. " Schedule III annexed to Raj Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules carries the list of ministerial services and the cadre of Patwaris is entered at item No. 54 thereof Schedule 'b' indicates the Heads of Office entitled to exercise the powers referred to in Part III and Rule 15 (1) of the aforesaid Rules in respect of ministerial services and Class IV services. According to entry No. 31 of this Schedule, the Head of Office for Ministerial services under the tehsil staff (Land Records) is the Tehsildar and the next higher authority is the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned. This would show that under rule 15 (1) the Tehsildar as the Head of Office of the Tehsil staff (Land Records) is authorised to inflict all penalties specified in rule 14 on the Patwaris who are included in the category of ministerial services according to Schedule III. Rule 16 lays down the procedure for imposing major penalties. According to sub-rule (2), the disciplinary authority is required to frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the enquiry is proposed to be held. It requires that such charges together with the statements of the allegations on which they are based shall be communicated in writing to the government servant and he shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the disciplinary authority a written statement indicating whether he admits the truth of all or any of the charges, what explanation or defence, if any, he has to offer and whether he desires to be heard in person. Explanation attached to this sub-rule says that in this sub rule and in sub-rule (3), the expression "disciplinary authority" shall include the authority competent under these rules to impose upon the Government servant any of the penalties specified in Cl. 5 (i), (ii) and (iii) of R. 14. In view of this explanation, it is clear that even if the charge sheet has been framed by the Tehsildar, it would not vitiate the proceedings as the expression "disciplinary authority" includes the Head of Office, viz. , the Tehsildar in this case. Under the circumstances, I find no substance in the contention of the appellant that the enquiry stands vitiated because the Collector did not appoint an Enquiry Officer or because he failed to sign the charge sheet himself The error which has crept into the show cause notice stating that the Enquiry Officer had been appointed, in this context, is a very minor error, arising from inadvertence and cannot be held to be fatal to the enquiry. Apart from the above objection, no other circumstances has been brought to my notice which would show that any prejudice has been caused to the appellant. As discussed above, this objection also fails and can be of no avail to the appellant. In the result, the appeal is hereby rejected. .;