1. - The petitioner preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 1 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and propriety of the order dated 11.2.1987 passed by the Secretary, the Tonk Zile Sahakari Shoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Tonk, under the orders of its Administrator whereby a punishment of reversion was imposed upon the petitioner exercising the s powers provided under Rule 19(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services ;Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,:958. The facts giving rise to present petition are stated in succeeding pares.

2. A memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services I:Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 10 the Rules of 1958) dated 26.11.1986 was served upon the petitioner along with the statement of allegation. By the memorandum Annex. 1, two allegations were levelled against the petitioner. The memorandum referred above is on record, however, the statement of allegation is not annexed with the memorandum. Be that as it may, the petitioner submitted an application dated 9.12.1986 whereby he demanded certain information's from the disciplinary authority to give an effective reply to the allegations levelled against him. It is pertinent to note here that while submitting the application dated 26.11.1986 the petitioner in quite unambiguous terms denied the allegations levelled against him. The petitioner termed the allegations as contrary to the facts and baseless. The relevant portion of the application dated 26.11.1986 wherein the petitioner denied the allegations is reproduced below:

"vki }kjk mDr vkjksi i= esa esjh izxfr ds tks vkadMs+ fn[kyk;s x;s gSa os xyr gSa ,oa vki }kjk yxk;s x;s vkjksi rF;ghu ,oa vk/kkjghu gSaA vr% eq>s ekU; ugha gSaA"

3. The Secretary of the respondent Bank by a communication dated 2.1.1987 communicated the petitioner that the information's sought by him are not relevant and therefore, he instructed the petitioner to submit a statement of defence within a period of 10 days thereafter. The petitioner by an another communication dated 9.1.1987 reiterated his request to supply the information demanded by him by the application Annex. 2. The petitioner after submission of the communication dated 9.1.1987 proceeded on medical leave for a period commencing from 20.1.1987 to 4.3.1987. The medical leave for the period referred above was sanctioned by the Secretary of the respondent Bank as it is evident from the order placed on record as Annex. 5.

4. The petitioner while undergoing medical leave received the order impugned Annex. 6 dated 11.2.1987. The disciplinary authority imposed a 2s punishment of reversion upon the petitioner by resorting the powers provided under sub-rule (ii) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958. It is pertinent to note here that the powers provided under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 are special powers whereby regular inquiry provided under rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 can be dispensed with. Rule 19 (ii) of the Rules of 1958 is in consonance with the provisions of clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The disciplinary authority while resorting to powers under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 averred that the delinquent employee was creating hurdles in holding regular inquiry under rule 16 of the rules of 1958. According to the disciplinary authority the petitioner failed to submit reply to the charge-sheet within the period stipulated and therefore, he was not co-operating in smooth holding of disciplinary proceedings.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by order Annex. 6 dated 11.2.1987 preferred a review petition before the Administrator of the Society on 10.8.1987. The review petition preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Administrator of the respondent bank under the order dated 19.5.1995, however, copy of the same was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently made numerous requests to the competent authorities of the bank to supp