ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 16 -6 -1982 (Annex. 4), 28 -2 -1983/1 -3 -1183 (Annex.6) and 2 -5 -1984 (Annex.7).
(2.) THE petitioner was serving as a Constable in the Police Department and he was charge -sheeted and an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') was initiated against him. The charge against the petitioner was that he remained absent from 28 -5 -1981 to 4 -2 -1982 and despite notices he did not report on duty. The petitioner submitted his reply to to the charge -sheet and explained that on 13 -5 -1981 he left the police line after seeking permission from the R.I. Police Line and he also sought permission to leave the Head Quarter. Thereafter he applied for 5 days C.L. and one day's permission to leave Head Quarter and the same was granted to him and he was supposed to report on duty on 28 -5 -1981. Unfortunately during this period the father of the petitioner became the victim of gangesters and he was hospitalised. Therefore he was looking after his father's welfare. He further submits that this incident was further followed by a dispute with regard to land with the people of village Dawli and on account of that dispute the petitioner was also implicated in a criminal case under Section 307 IPC and he was detained in judicial custody and after some time he was released on bail. After release on bail there arose a dispute. Therefor, the petitioner submits that on account of unavoidable circumstances he could not attend the office. It was also submitted that during the period of absence no notice was served on him nor the same were served on any of the memberr of his family. However, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory The Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the matter and the enquiry was conducted by the Dy. Superintendent of Police Churu. The petitioner submitted that he did not receive any notice from the Enquiry Officer. He does not know whether any enquiry officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer in his report stated that four time summons have been issued to the delinquent but he did not report before the Enquiry Officer, therefore the enquiry could not be proceeded under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and a resort was taken to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and found the petitioner guilty. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of removal of the petitioner from service. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner preferred an appeal before the non -petitioner No. 2. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review petition under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958 and the review petition was also dismissed. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the resort taken by the authorities to Rule 19(2) is absolutely wrong and illegal for dispensing with the regular enquiry under Rule 16. Thus, the learned Counsel submits that the whole conduct of the enquiry and the order passed thereon are bad and the same may be set aside.
(3.) THE first and foremost question is that what is the scope of rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1958. Rule 19 reads as under: 19. Special Procedure in Certain cases. - -Notwithstanding any thing contained in Rules 16, 17 and 18, (i) where a penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where the disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules; or (iii) where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to follow such procedure, the disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders as it deems fit. Provided that Commission shall be consulted before passing such orders in any case in which such consultation is necessary. Note: - -If any question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to give any person an opportunity of showing cause under Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss, or remove such person or to reduce him in rank, as the case may be, shall be subject to only one appeal to the next higher authority. Sub -rule (ii) of Rule 19 contemplates that if it is found that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed under Rules 16,17 and then the disciplinary Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing can dispense with the enquiry. In the present case, it appears from the order of the disciplinary Authority that it was satisfied that since the petitioner has, knowing fully well the charges against him, is deliberately avoiding the service of notices and did not appear before the Enquiry Officer, he dispensed with the enquiry and a resort was taken to Rule 19(2). He found the petitioner guilty of wilfully remaining absent from duty therefore he was dismissed from service.;