Key Points: - The judgment holds that a civil servant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, including two stages of opportunity under Article 311(2) and Rule 16 adherence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court finds that recording of entire oral evidence in the presence of the petitioner and strict compliance with Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules is mandatory; merely cross-examining witnesses is insufficient when evidence was recorded in the absence (!) (!) (!) . - The order of removal was set aside due to procedural defects; the State is directed to return money (Rs. 205) collected from the petitioner if the removal stands reversed, indicating relief for the petitioner and the conditional return of funds (!) (!) (!) .

What is the requirement for a reasonable opportunity to be heard under Article 311(2) of the Constitution in the context of Rajasthan Civil Services Rules?

What is the appellate court's stance on whether the enquiry proceedings must record oral evidence in the presence of the charged person and follow Rule 16 requirements?

What are the consequences for the State if a removal order is set aside due to non-compliance with procedural rules and the charged money previously recovered must be returned?