GOVIND MATHUR,J. - (1.) This petition for writ is before us to examine correctness of the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by learned Appellate Authority in appeal No. G/I/B4(i)(J) 27/2016.
(2.) Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner entered in the services of the District Judgeship, Pali as a Lower Divisional Clerk in the year 1996 and was posted in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran. By memorandum (Annex.3), the disciplinary authority called upon the petitioner to explain the charge of misconduct mainly relating to unauthorized absence from duty on several occasions and also for non-joining of duties within the period prescribed under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Joining Time), Rules, 1981. Being not satisfied with the explanation advanced, the disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer to make a detailed probe with regard to the charge of misconduct. The Inquiry Officer after conducting regular inquiry submitted report of the same to the disciplinary authority on 30.06.2016. A copy of the inquiry report was also supplied to the delinquent petitioner and he was asked to explain evidence and finding adverse to him. Opportunity of hearing too was afforded to the delinquent employee. The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration entire record arrived at the conclusion that the charge of misconduct on the basis of evidence available stands established. Accordingly, the findings were recorded against each and every charge. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 26.10.2016 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service with proportionate pension upon the petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal as per the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and that came to be rejected on 31.05.2017.
(3.) By this petition for writ, while challenging correctness of the order dated 31.05.2017, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority failed to appreciate that the disciplinary authority while imposing major punishment has taken into consideration previous conduct of the petitioner pertaining to which no charge was framed and further that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the delinquency established.;