- (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure-15) whereby the petitioner has been punished by stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect and the order dated 22.3.2001 (Annexure-16) whereby the review petition of the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director, Fisheries against the vacancy of the year 1988-89. The other relevant facts, in brief, of the case, as per petitioner, are that the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 23.9.1998 of work as Assistant Director, Fisheries and Fish Farmer Development Agency (In short "FFDA") leveling four charges. The gist of the charges No. 1 to 4 is that the petitioner while discharging Government work has ignored the Government instructions/rule in this regard and made irregular allotments by misusing his office; he has deliberately allotted larger water area to less fish farmer thereby caused revenue loss to the State Government; deliberately ignored the instructions issued by the Directorate and allotted the reservoir to fish farmer without assessing the water area and did not conduct the proceeding of reverting the said reservoir to the department on account of which the general auction could not be done and the said inaction gave an opportunity to the fish farmer to go to the Court against the department and obtain stay order. The petitioner gave the interim reply on 4.3.1999 and further reply on 26.4.1999 on inspection of the record. The said replies were not considered and straightway, vide order dated 8.6.1999, Additional Commissioner (1st) Departmental Enquiry, Jaipur was appointed as enquiry officer. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry submitted the report on 9.6.2000 and found that charge No. 1 & 3 are fully proved whereas charge No. 2 & 4 are partially proved. The petitioner submitted a representation against the same on 17.7.2000 and objected the finding of guilt, but without consideration of the said representation, the impugned order dated 24.10.2000 was passed by the disciplinary authority on finding four charges proved without any notice of disagreement for the exonerated part of charge No. 2 & 4.
(2.) It is stated in the writ petition that the enquiry officer has held the petitioner guilty of the allegations which were not part of the charge sheet, the enquiry report is contrary to its own discussion made therein or evidence on record particularly with reference to charge No. 1 and charge No. 2. In respect of charge No. 1 he has concluded that the allotment in Bundh Chhaparwada was made on 26.3.1990 by his predecessor P.S. Bhandari whereas the petitioner was posted there on 5.7.1990 and further there is no proof that Bundh Chhaparwada is of 80 to 100 hectare, but still the charge has been held to be fully proved and as regard charge No. 2, he himself has not held the petitioner guilty of causing any loss to the State Government.
(3.) Apart from above, other substantial grievances of the petitioner stated in the writ petition are that the enquiry officer has gone beyond the charge levelled and gave a finding in respect of the allegations which were not part of the charge without any amendment in the charge and notice to the petitioner. He has also raised the grievance that the disciplinary authority has also not given him any notice of disagreement before holding the petitioner even guilty of the exonerated part of charge No. 2 & 4, therefore, findings of the enquiry officer are either based on no evidence or are perverse or he has acted beyond the scope of the charge and further the disciplinary authority has grossly violated the principles of natural justice by holding the petitioner guilty of charge for which the petitioner was not required to submit any representation as the enquiry officer himself exonerated him of the charge No. 2 & 4 partly.;