- (1.) SHRI Moti Lal, former L. D. C. of Udaipur District, has been dismissed by the order of the Collector, Udaipur, dated 1. 10. 1965. The proceedings began with a notice issued on 14. 5. 1965 to SHRI Moti Lal by the Collector stating that his annual confidential record for the years 1962 to 1965 had been examined and it was concluded that his integrity was doubtful. The notice stated that SHRI Moti Lal should show cause why he should not be dismissed from service in accordance with Government instructions contained in Appointments (A) Department circular No. F. 20 (9) Apptts (A)/57 dated 28. 7. 1959. These instructions lay down the method of preparation and submission of confidential reports of Government servants. In para 2 of Part II of this circular, it is laid down that if an officer is reported to be dishonest consistently for a continuous period of three years he should be required to show cause under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 why he should not be dismissed from service. In reply to the notice issued by the Collector, SHRI Moti Lal denied liability to the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. After considering SHRI Moti Lal's explanation the Collector passed his impugned order on 1. 10. 1965 dismissing SHRI Moti Lal from service.
(2.) THE procedure for dismissal which is a major penalty under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, is laid down in Rule 16 of these Rules. THE procedure is that there should be a departmental enquiry at which the officer whose conduct is being inquired into shall have an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses against him and examining witnesses in his own defence. Rule 19 of the aforesaid Rules says that notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 16, 17 and 18, the disciplinary authority may dispense with the prescribed procedure if it is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to follow that procedure. Para 2 of Part II of the circular of the 28th July, 1959 does not at all suggest that the procedure for imposing the penalty of dismissal should be dispensed with. THE Collector has not addressed himself to the question whether in the present case it was not reasonably practical to follow the prescribed procedure. In my opinion it should have been possible to draw up a charge sheet and face the appellant Shri Moti Lal with the annual confidential record which could have been produced by the Office Superintendent or his representative. THEreafter, Shri Moti Lal should have been given the opportunity of producing his defence, apart from the opportunity that he could have of cross-examining the custodian of the annual confidential record for a clarification of the record. After going through this procedure a show cause notice should have been issued to Shri Moti Lal before imposing the penalty. In my opinion, the procedure followed by the Collector is in violation of the prescribed rules, and this vitiates the order of dismissal. In this case it was both practicable and necessary to follow the prescribed procedure of holding an enquiry. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the learned Collector and direct that a de novo enquiry be held against Shri Moti Lal in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Meanwhile, Shri Moti Lal should be reinstated and he should be granted leave of the kind due and admissible to him for the period of absence from duty. It should be possible to complete the enquiry within two months' time. .;