Dwarka Prasad, J. - (1.) The petitioner Raraesh Chandra was served with a charge-sheet alongwith a statement of allegations dated May 17, 1969 and an enquiry was made against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). Two charges were framed against the petitioner. The first charge was that while the petitioner was working as a Veterinary Surgeon, Incharge of the Veterinary Hospital at Pratapgarh, he charged fees for vaccination of horses from their owners, on December 18, 1966. Charge No. 2 related to the collection of fees for vaccination of horses on January. 12 and 13,1967, from the owners of such horses. It was alleged that in doing so, the petitioner misused his official position.
(2.) The Deputy Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, Rajasthan, Jaipur, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, as the explanation submitted by the petitioner in respect of the charge-sheet was considered by the State Government as unsatisfactory. The conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated February 12, 1971. may be reproduced in his own words:- "Yet whatever has come on record clearly substantiates that Shri R. C. Gupta, D. O. did recover some amounts when he was vaccinating horses and it was later on transferred to the Committee concerned for the purpose of construction of dispensary building. The prosecution had not been able to prove that there were departmental instructions prohibiting c Election of such amounts by way of fee or otherwise. The rule 6 of the Rajasthan Government Servants Conduct and Pensioners Rules, however, clearly prohibits collection of subscriptions, which in my view also cover contributions. So subject to the above observations the allegations against the delinquent officer Shri R. C. Gupta stands proved. He certainly made misuse of his position to that extent." The case of the petitioner was that he did not realise any amount by way of fees at all, on account of vaccination of horses. But according to him, the concerned persons had contributed on their own accord for the construction of a building for the dispensary and that the amount so contributed was collected by one Abdul Rehman, who was Incharge of the Sub-Veterinary Dispensary, Arnod, where the amounts were collected and the same were made over by him to the building construction committee, Arnod for the purpose of construction of building for the dispensary. On the basis of the aforesaid finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the State Government imposed a penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner by its order dated June 14, 1971 (Ext. 3). A review petition was preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order passed by tie State Government and (hereupon the penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect was modified to that of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. A further review petition to the Government having failed, the petitioner has approached this Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government, while imposing the penalty upon the petitioner as well as while deciding the review application, did not give any reasons for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and the Enquiry Officer has not also given any finding at all to the effect that the petitioner realised any amount by way of fees. The submission of the learned counsel is that there was no charge against the petitioner that either he by himself collected any amount by way of contribution for construction of a dispensary building at Arnod or that he helped in the collection of such an amount for building construction and as such the charges framed against the petitioner have not at all been proved and, therefore, the punishment imposed upon him is based on no material or finding.;