1. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of dismissal of the petitioner, who was serving as Constable with Police Line, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur. He was served with the charge-sheet on 31.12.1989 on two allegations. Charge No. 1 was to the effect that he wilfully absented from duties for the period between 01.06.1989 to 30.07.1989 for 39 days. Charge No. 2 was to the effect that in the past also, he had absented from duties for 662 days on as many as 48 occasions and was penalised seven times in proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. He did not improve himself, thus, showing that he had no interest in the Government service.

2. The enquiry officer in his report submitted on 31.12.1989, on Charge No. 1, concluded that though the absence of the petitioner for 39 days was proved but he was also able to prove that he was during relevant period sick. Even then he should not have absented from duties without getting the leave duly sanctioned. Charge No. 1 was thus found partially proved against the petitioner. As regards Charge No. 2, the enquiry officer recorded the finding that though it was correct that the petitioner had remained absent on earlier occasions but he could not be held guilty and penalised for this charge again as the same would tantamount to double jeopardy and would be hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The disciplinary authority however in his order dated 27.01.1990 did not fully agree with the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer and found both the charges proved against the petitioner and thus, finally dismissed him from service. Petitioner filed appeal against the order of dismissal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.06.1990. Petitioner then filed review petition before the Governor of the State of Rajasthan. The review petition was allowed in part and the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police was set-aside with direction that petitioner shall be supplied copy of the enquiry report and upon receipt of copy of the enquiry report, he would be at liberty to submit a fresh representation.

3. Copy of the enquiry report was thereafter supplied to the petitioner. His appeal was then again heard and dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police vide order dated 20.08.1994. Aggrieved by all the aforesaid orders, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Shri Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the reviewing authority committed illegality in remanding the matter to the appellate authority when it found that prejudice was caused to the petitioner by non-supply of enquiry report particularly when severe penalty of dismissal was imposed upon him. Proper course for him was to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority and not just to the appellate authority. Learned Counsel in this connection has relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc. etc. v. B. Karunakar,, AIR 1994 SC 1074 and Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan,, AIR 1991 SC 471 . Learned Counsel submitted that the disciplinary authority not only awarded penalty of dismissal without supplying the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner but also he differed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer substantially on both the charges. Learned Counsel submitted that if the disciplinary authority wanted to differ from the view taken by the enquiry officer, it was incumbent upon him to serve upon the petitioner notice of dissent. Order of penalty is therefore liable to be set-aside on both the counts. Learned Counsel further argued that when already on earlier seven occasions, the petitioner had been penalised by awarding penalties for the same period of absence and the period of absence was regularised by granting leave, the same could not be again made subject-ma