The imposition of a major penalty, such as forfeiture of past service, must be based on a proper enquiry and adherence to the procedure established by law. Arbitrary and mala fide actions by the authorities are not permissible.

1. 1. By this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 05.07.1989 (Annexure- 5), whereby the major penalty of forfeiture of past service for the period 12.10.57 to 05.07.1989 was imposed on the petitioner by the Municipal Board, Ramgarh Shekawati (Rajasthan) (Respondent No. 2) and as a result of which the petitioner lost all the benefits, which would otherwise have become due to him on completion of qualifying period of service of about thirty two years such as pension, gratuity, provident fund, salary & other consequential benefits and allowances etc. as admissible under the Rules.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner, who was appointed as a "Chowkidar" (Class IV employee) in the office of the Municipal Board (Respondent No. 2) vide order dated 12.10.1957 (Annexure- 1), rendered his services continuously with the Municipal Board and was fixed in a regular pay-scale. During the course of service the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on account of his alleged absence from duty for the period 13th to 15th June, 1989 vide notice dated 22nd June, 1989 stating inter alia that on account of an action under the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 51) be not taken against him and the necessary proceedings be initiated against him for the alleged absence for the said period vide (Annexure- 2). The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice, which was received by the respondents on 23rd June, 1989 vide (Annexure-3). In his reply, the petitioner asserted that he had presented himself on all the respective dates on which he was marked absent i.e. 13th June, 1989 to 15th June, 1989, but he was not allowed to mark his attendance in the attendance register, maintained in the office of respondents. He has further stated in the said reply that the question of his wilful absence from duty as alleged by the respondents does not arise. The petitioner has further contended that he was a member of the weaker section of the Society being a schedule tribe and working in the Municipal Board and the impugned action which was taken against the petitioner was mala fide and motivated in kind of the bias of one Shri Dilip Singh, Revenue Inspector. This fact is apparent to this court from the annexure-3, which is the petitioner's reply to the show-cause (Annexure-4). From the perusal of the reply (Annexure-3), the petitioner has attributed mala fide on the part of the Respondents in as much as he has categorically mentioned that one Revenue Inspector Shri Dilip Singh maintained bias towards the petitioner and was speaking against the petitioner and subjected to continuous harassment and did not allow him to mark his presence in the Attendance Register for the aforesaid period i.e. 13th June, 1989 to 19th June, 1989, whereas the notice referred to three days' absence of the petitioner from duty for the period w.e.f. 13th June, 1989 to 16th June, 1989. The petitioner has also mentioned that as a result of this victimization, he became un-well and as a result of which he could not report for duty for the period 20th June, 1989 to 30th June, 1989 for which he submitted relevant medical certificates with the Respondents.

3. It has further been contended that the petitioner was called for personal hearing by the respondents No. 2 vide letter dated 03.07.1989 (Annexure-4) by which the petitioner was apprised by the said respondent that they are intending to take proposed action against the petitioner on account of his absence from duty for the aforesaid period in accordance with Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 for short "Rules of 1958" read with Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 for short "Rules of 1951". Thereafter the petitioner again presented himself in the office of respond