SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. - (1.) The petitioner who was holding the post of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur passed the orders for development of the city. In this process, shops were also directed to be vacated from unauthorized persons who appear to have put up their pressure to higher authorities and result is that a charge-sheet was issued to him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Service Rules on 24.12.1980 levelling several charges. For the purpose of present case, charge No. 1, 2, 5 and 10 are quoted which have been found to be proved and partial proved:- JUDGEMENT_27_LAWS(RAJ)2_2017.jpg
(2.) As has come on record, reply was filed by the petitioner asserting that he had powers under Rules to pass necessary orders and exercising of power over and above his subordinate could not be said to be a mis-conduct within the meaning of Rules of 1971. The charge-sheet could not have been served upon him. It appears that the charge-sheet remained pending for number of years and he retired on 30.6.1993 as has come on record, the inquiry report was not made available to him and the punishment order has been passed by the Dy. Secretary, Local Self Government stopping of 30% pension permanently of the petitioner holding him guilty for the charges stated as above.
(3.) Learned counsel has taken this court to the aspects of the departmental inquiry. It is pointed out that the protected departmental proceedings continued for good number of year that is from 1980 to 1997 which itself has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Further it has been stated that the witnesses were examined behind his back and he did not get the opportunity to cross examine them. He does not know what was the basis and how inquiry officer proceeded in the enquiry as he has not been able to made available the inquiry report. In support of this contention, the learned senior counsel has taken to this court to annexure/6 and annexure/7, documents issued by the Government, Department wherein it has been mentioned that the enquiry report could not be served upon the petitioner which has already retired from service. It is, therefore, contended that as the petitioner does not know the manner in which the Enquiry Officer has proceeded to hold guilty for charge No. 1, 2 and 5 and also holding him partly guilty for charge No. 10, he has not able to contest such findings before this court. Moreover as the case relates to the period prior to the year 1980 and the petitioner stood retired in 1993, unless the copy of enquiry report is available to him, serious prejudice has been caused and can be inferred by this Court also.;