In disciplinary proceedings against a government servant, the Disciplinary Authority must provide the employee with a fair opportunity to defend himself, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and produce evidence in defence. However, if the employee is found guilty of the charges against him, he is not entitled to a further notice before an order withholding half of his salary for the suspension period is passed.

1. - In this writ petition, the first submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the inquiry was not fair inasmuch is the petitioner was neither allowed any defence counsel nor he was allowed an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses appearing for the department nor he was allowed to examine witnesses in his defence. Under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') the delinquent Government servant, who is served with a charge sheet under Rule 16, is permitted to present his defence with the assistance of any other Government servant approved by the Disciplinary Authority. It is not the case of the petitioner that he desired to take the assistance of any other Government servant or any other person for purposes of presenting his d fence but the Disciplinary Authority or the Inquiry Officer refined permission to the petitioner to allow such Government servant or other person to assist the petitioner, either in preparing his defence or cross-examining the witnesses The allegation on the score is, therefore, completely unfounded and has no basis.

2. As regards the other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the non-petitioners in their reply to the show cause notice have asserted that the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the department and also to produce his evidence in defence, but he did not do so and that on the other hand the petitioner submitted an application on April 15, 1970 (a copy of which has been produced with the reply to the show cause notice and marked Ex R. 1) in which he admitted his carelessness and stated that he did not wish to submit anything in opposition to the charges. The non-petitioners have categorically stated in their reply that the witnesses of the Department were examined on April 14, 1970 and April 15, 1970, but the petitioner did not cross-examine them "though he had every opportunity to do so". It has also been stated in the reply to the show cause notice that the petitioner did not submit any application for summoning any defence witnesses. The content of the application Ex R 1 support the case of the non-petitioners, both in respect of the fact that the petitioner was present on April 15, 1970, before the Inquiry Officer and that he was not inclined to present any defence. The petitioner has admitted his presence before the Inquiry Officer on April 14, 1970 in para 8 of the writ petition. Thus, it cannot be held that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the Department or to produce his defence. The first contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is repelled.

3. The second contention of the learned Counsel is that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules, but later on the Disciplinary Authority erroneously proceeded under Rule 17 and awarded a minor punishment to the petitioner by withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect and relied upon the decision of this Court in Dr. Kishan Singh v. Stale of Rajasthan 1965 RLW 153 in support of his contention. It should be observed in this contention that Dr. Kishan Singh's case (supra) was very much different from the present case inasmuch as in that case after giving a notice under Rule 16 of the Rules no evidence was examined, but the disciplinary authority switched on to the procedure of Rule 17 of the Rules. In the present case, however, inquiry against the petitioner was completed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 and after receiving the Inquiry Officer's report, the Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilt of the charge, but then undo Sub-rule (11) of Rule 16 the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose a minor penalty upon the petitioner. The procedure thus adopted in the present ca