1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged punishment order dated 11.4.1988 (Ex.7) inflicting penalty of dismissal from service so also order of appellate authority dated 7.8.1991 (Ex.9) in an inquiry u/R. 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ('CCA Rules').

2. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, while working as LDC in substantive capacity, was placed under suspension vide order dated 10.3.1983 (Ex.1) u/R. 13, CCA Rules, for a delinquency committed by him. A criminal case was also registered against him for offences u/ss. 419 & 420, IPC and was tried by Court of ACJM No. 2, Sawai Madhopur. While under suspension, respondents changed his head quarters from Bharatpur to Jaipur vide order dated 17.11.1983 (Ex.2), against which he submitted representation dated 2.12.1983 (Ex.3) to the effect that looking to the financial crunch and family circumstances during his suspension period, it was difficult for him to stay at changed headquarters-Jaipur. Pending his representation for recalling the order of changing head quarters, respondent No. 2 vide order dated 7.12.1984 without serving him any charge-sheet, appointed Inspector, Factories & Boilers, Alwar as Inquiry Officer. However, upon having come to the notice that the petitioner has not been served with charge-sheet, the order dated 7.12.1984 appointing inquiry officer was withdrawn by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 26.5.1985. The petitioner was served with charge-sheet dated 28.4.1985 (Ex.4) issued u/R. 16 of CCA Rules, to which he submitted an application on 10.10.1985 for inspection of documents on record but despite his request, he was not allowed to inspect requisite documents and without which, he submitted his reply to the charge-sheet (Ex.5) on 24.2.1986. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 2.9.1986 appointed Inspector Factories & Boilers, Alwar as Inquiry Officer to hold the enquiry against the petitioner.

3. The case of petitioner is that during inquiry proceedings, no one was examined, rather the inquiry officer completed inquiry ex-parte without affording him reasonable Opportunity of hearing which has been initiated in disregard of rules of natural justice and the procedure provided under CCA Rules, and finally submitted his report dated 21.12.1987 (Ex.6), thereafter the disciplinary authority based on the finding recorded by inquiry officer holding him guilty for both the charges, ultimately inflicted penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 11.4.1988 (Ex.7), against which he preferred appeal before the appellate authority but since it remained undecided, that compelled him to approach this Court by filing writ petition No. 4546/90, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 25.4.1991 (Ex.8) with the direction to respondents to consider submissions made by the petitioner in his pending appeal and pass a speaking order with one from the date of order. However, his appeal after direction of this Court in terms of order (Ex.8) was decided by respondents vide order dated 17.8.1991 (Ex.9). Hence this writ petition.

4. Ms. Ashish Joshi, counsel for the petitioner has raised following submissions in assailing impugned orders of disciplinary & appellate authorities inflicting penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner:

(1) Since the petitioner was not paid subsistance allowance from September, 1985 till date of his dismissal from service, despite his reminders, it prevented him from participating in the inquiry, inasmuch as due to his financial crunch & family circumstances, he could not participate in the inquiry, in such circumstances, the very ex-parte inquiry initiated against him is in violation of rules of natural justice, and in support of her submission, counsel relied upon decision of the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 , Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 90 & Anwarun Nisha Khatoon v. State of Bihar,