1. - This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner Hari Mohan challenging the order dated 10/5/1994 (Ann.1) by which he has been awarded penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and forfeiture of the salary for the period of suspension i.e. from 16/12/1991 to 16/5/1992 except the subsistence allowance already to him, the order dated 18/8/1994 (Ann.2) by which his appeal filed against the aforesaid order dated 10/5/1994 (Ann.1) was dismissed and the order dated 4/8/1997 (Ann.3) by which review petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Facts of the case are that a joint charge-sheet under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, the "Rules of 1958") was served upon petitioner-Hari Mohan and co-delinquent Bijendra Singh alleging that petitioner along with co-delinquent Bijendra Singh, while they were on duty of Vehicle No.RNG 3236 Chetak No.4 on 15/12/1991 as a Driver in Police Stations Mansarovar and Sodala, took the vehicle for the private work to Rajasthan Police Academy, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur, where the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged. Charge against them was that this act of theirs proved their negligence and dereliction of duties. Petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet denying the charges. He even denied the fact he was deputed on duty on the said vehicle. It was submitted that the documents do not prove that both were simultaneously given duty on the same vehicle. At the time of accident also, petitioner was not present. Department examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents. The enquiry officer in his enquiry report proved all the charges against both of them.

3. The disciplinary authority on that basis awarded penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 20/3/1993. Petitioner preferred departmental appeal, which was allowed by the appellate authority vide order dated 17/7/1993 and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority with the directions to supply the findings of the enquiry officer and then to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In compliance of the order of the appellate authority dated 17/7/1993, the enquiry officer furnished copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and asked him to submit his explanation. Petitioner submitted reply. The disciplinary authority passed the fresh order of penalty on 10/5/1994 (Ann.2) again reiterating the same punishment of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and forfeiture of the salary for the period of suspension i.e. from 16/12/1991 to 16/5/1992 except the subsistence allowance already to him. Petitioner filed departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur, who dismissed the same vide order dated 18/8/1994 (Ann.3). Petitioner filed review petition against the order dated 18/8/1994 before His Excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan, who too dismissed the review petition vide order dated 4/8/1997 (Ann.3). Regarding the incident, a first information was also lodged against both of them being FIR No.384/1991 at Police Station Banipark, Jaipur for offence u/Ss.279 and 337 IPC. However, after investigation, the police filed a negative final report in the court holding petitioner not responsible for the rash and negligent driving. The court accepted the final report.

4. Mrs.Anupama Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the enquiry officer has committed serious illegality in holding the petitioner guilty on the basis of statement of Bijendra Singh, who was also co-delinquent facing the same enquiry. It is well settled principle of law that statements of one accused cannot be used against another accused. This is so because the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross examine Bijendra Singh. Learned counsel further argued that in terms of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Ac