RAFIQ, J. - (1.) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.3.1995 by which he was awarded penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and difference of salary, and that of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension with direction not to recover a sum of Rs. 5,174.97 from the petitioner.
(2.) Shri Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact, no enquiry as required by Rule 53 read with Appendix-B thereto of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market (Market Committee Employees) Service Rules, 1975 (for short, "Rules of 1975") was held and that respondents did not examine a single witness to prove as many as 23 charges against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, one Assistant Director was made the enquiry officer but subsequently when he did not submit the enquiry report, he was changed and one Shri Shankar Lal Koolwal Supervisor Mandi Samiti was appointed as enquiry officer. Shri Shankar Lal Koolwal Supervisor Mandi Samiti never conducted the enquiry inasmuch not a single letter was issued by him to the petitioner to appear before him. Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing to defend himself. Petitioner was not even conveyed that the enquiry officer has been changed. Learned counsel argued that respondents did not even serve upon the petitioner copies of the enquiry report. Petitioner was in those circumstances gravely prejudiced by non-supply of the enquiry report. Order of penalty is therefore liable to be quashed and set-aside.
(3.) Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was given a written communication on 9.5.1994 in which he was informed that the Mandi Samiti was contemplating to take a final decision in the pending enquiry against the petitioner. He should therefore firstly appear before the Secretary on 19.5.1994 for personal hearing, failing which; no further opportunity shall be given to him. If he wanted to produce any evidence or witness or if he wanted to examine the document, he may do so before the personal hearing on 19.5.1994. Learned counsel cited the letter dated 26.5.1994 written by the petitioner to the Secretary of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bandikui wherein, the petitioner submitted that he had even duly replied to the charge-sheet and that considering his defence in reply, matter should be concluded in appropriate and justified manner as expeditiously as possible. It was argued that petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself and in fact he inspected the documents for as many as six days. He cannot therefore by now be allowed to complain about not providing any opportunity of hearing.;