V.G.PALSHIKAR, J. - (1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dt. 26.9.92 (Annex. 8 to the petition) as illegal and unsustainable in law for several grounds mentioned in the petition.
(2.) THE factual matrix necessary for adjudication of the lis stated briefly is as follows; the petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk in the District Industries Centre, Udaipur and was placed under suspension for remaining absent without leave and for wilful disobedience of the orders, this was done by order dt. 13.3.89. On 7.2.90, a charge - sheet was framed and served on the petitioner with memorandum of charges and enquiry was commenced against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules'). The charges basically pertained to wilful disobedience of the orders and wilful absence without obtaining leave. During the proceedings of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner complained on several occasions regarding non -supply of the statement of charges, statement of allegations and several documents on which reliance was placed by the department for those charges. It is also complained by the petitioner that he was not given permission to avail the service of an assistant to help him in the enquiry. On 26.9.92, the impugned order of punishment of removal from service was passed which according to the petitioner was made in hot haste and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also alleged that before making order of punishment dt. 26.9.92 no notice asking to petitioner to show cause why he should not be penalized accompanied by report of the Enquiry Officer was served on the petitioner and therefore, according to the petitioner the cardinal principles of natural justice have been violated. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of termination on several grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice by non -supply of certain documents, non -supply of the copy of the Enquiry officer's report, non -granting of adequate opportunity to lead his case and it is, therefore, submitted that this wholly vitiates the entire proceedings and the petitioner is entitled to be exonerated from the charges. According to the learned Counsel, the quantum of punishment is grossly disproportionate to the charges even if they are held to have been proved which factum is of course denied. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC page 484, it was argued by the learned Counsel that the High Court does have jurisdiction to go into the question of quantum of punishment; If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.
(3.) THE argument therefore, is that even if other contentions claiming quashing of the entire proceedings are not acceptable, the quantum of punishment of removal from service for the alleged misconduct of not preparing bills remaining absent without leave is so shocking disproportionate that this Court should interfere and mould the punishment appropriately to meet the ends of justice.;