VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this petition, petitioner is challenging the impugned order Annex. A/7 dated 22. 3. 1993, whereby, petitioner was dismissed from service so also it is prayed that respondents may be directed to decide the appeal Annex. A/8.
(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Cattle Guard/chowkidar in the Forest Department at range Desuri on 16. 6. 1982 and vide Annex. 1 he was declared semi permanent in accordance with Work Charged Rules, 1964 and pay was fixed in pay scale of Rs. 350. 5. 430. THEreafter, on 1. 5. 1991 he was placed under suspension on the ground that he was arrested in connection recovery of 240 bottles of liquor from him by Police Station Rani District Pali and he remained in custody for more than 48 hours. THE suspension order was lateron revoked vide Annex. 3 dated 23. 3. 1992 during pendency of inquiry. Vide order dated 20. 6. 1992 petitioner was transferred from Range Pali to Range Desuri by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Pali. A communication was sent by the Assistant Conservator of Forest to the petitioner on 12. 2. 1993, whereby, he was directed to file his explanation for alleged recovery of 240 bottles of liquor. Petitioner filed his reply to the said communication and submitted that the allegation levelled against him is totally false so also the place of recovery does not belong to him. However, without holding proper inquiry the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Pali on the ground of registration of case for recovery of 240 bottles of liquor passed an order whereby, petitioner was dismissed from service and it is observed in the order of dismissal dated 22. 3. 1993 that this order has been passed in accordance with Forest Department's Standing Order 1973 which is applicable upon the work charged employees of Forest Department. The petitioner is challenging the said order on the ground that no inquiry in accordance with the disciplinary Rules was conducted against the petitioner so also in criminal trial he was acquitted from the charges levelled against him vide judgment dated 1. 8. 2001, it is pointed out by the petitioner that learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Desuri gave finding that there is no material on record to connect the petitioner with the so called agricultural field where from 240 bottles of liquor were recovered but respondent department without waiting for conclusion of criminal case and only on the basis of registration of case against the petitioner, in which after investigation challan was filed, has passed the order of dismissal, therefore, the order of dismissal is totally illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to law. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that before terminating the service of an employee it is the duty of the employer to issue charge sheet and to conduct proper inquiry in accordance with Rules but here in this case no charge sheet was served upon the petitioner only fact finding inquiry was conducted as per the instructions of Deputy Conservator of Forest, Pali and upon submission of report of fact finding by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, the petitioner was dismissed from service, such type of inquiry is totally illegal and have no foundation to stand before eye of law. Further it is submitted that in full fledged trial before competent criminal court conducted against petitioner, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 21. 8. 2001, therefore, an appeal was filed before the respondents for taking him on duty, vide communication dated 30. 5. 2003 the petitioner was directed to file copy of the judgment of criminal case and that too was submitted by the petitioner but till filing of writ petition respondents did not decide the appeal filed by the petitioner so also they are sitting over the decision for taking him back on duty after acquittal. As per contention of petitioner after completion of ten years of service, a work charged employee is required to be made permanent in accordance with Rule 3 (3) of the Work Charged Rules though he was declared semi permanent w. e. f. 16. 6. 1984, therefore, as per judgment in case of Sujjan Singh Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1991 WLR (Raj.) 340, the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 are applicable, therefore, proper inquiry was to be conducted before passing an order of dismissal, and admittedly no such inquiry was conducted by the respondents in this case and straightway on the basis of fact finding report sent by Assistant Conservator of Forest, Pali in which it is stated that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner for recovery of 240 bottles of liquor, the impugned order of dismissal was passed without holding any inquiry, therefore, order impugned dated 22. 3. 1993 deserves to be quashed because it is violative of principle of natural justice.
(3.) IN this petition reply has been filed by the respondents and it is contended that proper inquiry was conducted by the department and petitioner was provided an opportunity to defend his case but no witness or evidence was produced by the petitioner to prove his innocence, therefore, in inquiry he was found guilty for alleged misconduct and accordingly as per provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1973 petitioner was dismissed from service. Respondents have placed on record so called inquiry report, which is said to be conducted by Assistant Conservator of Forest, Pali as Annex. A/1 dated 1. 3. 1993 and submitted that order impugned has been passed on the basis of said inquiry. According to respondents, acquittal from the criminal court does not give any right to the petitioner to come back in service nor it is mandatory for the respondents to take petitioner back on duty on the ground that he was acquitted by the criminal Court, therefore, merely acquittal from criminal court in criminal case registered against him does not give any right to petitioner to claim reinstatement. With regard to pendency of appeal, it is submitted by respondents that petitioner has filed the appeal after ten years on being acquitted by criminal court, therefore, there is no question of reinstatement of petitioner in service. According to respondents the order of dismissal of petitioner is in consonance with the provisions of law and petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court. In reply respondents have referred to certain judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court. ;