ASHOK KUMAR GAUR,J. - (1.) The instant writ petition was filed by Hari Singh Karnawat petitioner, who was working as Lower Divisional Clerk in Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 21.07.1990/04.08.1990 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the penalty of dismissal from service passed by Disciplinary Authority, was set aside and petitioner was visited with a penalty of 'recorded warning' and further, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of salary and other benefits except subsistence allowance from the date of his suspension till the order of removal passed against him. The petitioner expired during the pendency of the writ petition on 27.02.1995 and the present writ petition is persued by his wife Smt. Udai Kanwar. The widow of original petitioner has been brought on record as legal representative by way of filing an application, which was allowed by this Court on 24.01.1996.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as L.D.C., was placed under suspension by an order dated 27.02.1985 in contemplation of departmental enquiry. The petitioner was served with a memo along with charge-sheet dated 22.08.1985. The Disciplinary Authority imposed five charges against the petitioner. The substance of the charges are as under:- 1. The petitioner was absent from duty for the period from 16.01.1985 to 26.02.1985 and on 25.02.1985, he came to office and put his signatures in the attendance register. 2. The petitioner did handover the service record and also did give charge to another employee. 3. The petitioner was suffering from mental ailment and he did produce the requisite certificate from a competent doctor and instead produced certificate from a local doctor. 4. The petitioner collected money in the name of Prime Minister Relief fund and after collection of money, did deposit the same. 5. The petitioner while discharging duties as L.D.C. was found to be involved in political activities and as such, he did discharge his official duty properly.
(3.) The petitioner after receipt of charge-sheet, submitted an application for inspection of documents dated 23.10.1985. The petitioner has alleged in his petition that application for inspection of record was given any heed and no record was shown to him. The petitioner has further alleged in his petition that he was informed about the appointment of Enquiry Officer and only once one Assistant Accounts Officer called the petitioner and recorded his statement. The petitioner alleges that he did receive any letter from the Enquiry Officer, regarding any date of hearing. The petitioner has further alleged that he was never informed about the dates on which witnesses on behalf of department were to be examined and petitioner was also given opportunity to file list of witnesses.;