1. - Under the Constitution 'We the people", have created a welfare State. A welfare State always behaves as a model employer, protecting and promoting the interest of its employees. However, this uthopian, vision, at times, gets blured, and, at time, is lost in the labyrinthine corridors of the bureaucracy. Smugged in the grandeur of bureaucratic power, the Government officers show scant respect for the rule of law and for human dignity. Like dictators of Banana republic, like satrap of petty kingdoms, Government officers trample upon the rights of the people. The employee, who is at the mercy of Government officers, at times, is awed and dismayed by the brutal use of force by the State to the extent that he forgets to protect his own interests and rights. However, even the voiceless person can seek refuge in a court of law and pray for justice to be done. This case is paradigm example of the tussel between the employer and employee. Since the petitioner has been removed from service vide order dated November 4, 1996, he has approached the haven of this Court for justice.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on December 16, 1967, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Patwari and was posted at Tehsil Begun, District Chittorgarh. For twenty-seven years, the petitioner performed his services with honesty and dedication. But, he hit a rough weather in the year 1994. On October 27, 1994, a charge sheet, under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'CCA Rules'), was issued to the petitioner. In the charge sheet two allegations were levelled against him namely, that while the petitioner was serving in Patwar Mandal Mandawari, he permitted one Ram Chandra son of Balu Raigar to encroach upon Government land in Khasra No.431 and permitted him to carry out his farming. Secondly, that the petitioner took Rs. 3200/-, by way of illegal gratification, from Ram Chandra, but did not mutate the said land in his name. When Ram Chandra asked the petitioner to return the said amount, he allegedly refused to do so. The departmental enquiry continued from 1994 till 20-7-1996.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the departmental proceeding on February 27, 1996, in his absence and in the absence of his defence nominee, the department had examined a number of witnesses. On March 6, 1996, the petitioner submitted an application requesting that he should be permitted to cross-examine the Witnesses examined on February 27, 1996. However, the department did not grant any opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. In fact, subsequently, vide order dated June 26, 1996 the departmental enquiry was carried out ex-parte against him. Moreover, during the pendency of departmental enquiry, the defence nominee of the petitioner was transferred. Therefore, the petitioner requested that a new defence nominee be appointed. However, even this plea fell on deaf ears. Furthermore, after the second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, he requested that certain documents be given to him. But this plea went responded. Eventually, vide order dated November 4, 1996, the petitioner was removed from service. Hence, this petition before this Court.

4. Mr. D.L.R. Vyas the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the respondents were trying to get rid of the petitioner by one way or the other. Even during continuation of the departmental enquiry, they transferred the petitioner from Patwar Mandal Govindpura, Tehsil Chittorgarh to Patwar Mandal Chiklad, Tehsil Pratapgarh. However, as the said order was an illegal one, the petitioner had challenged the same before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal stayed the said order. Unable to get rid of the petitioner by transferring him, the respondents issued an order dated June 18, 1996, whereby the petitioner was retired compulsorily. However, even in this endeavou