1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner who was working on the post of Nakedar in the Mining department of the State of Rajasthan was placed under suspension vide order Annex.2 dated 26.7.2004. The basis of the suspension order was that when the check post, where the petitioner was posted, was inspected by the team of Anti Corruption Bureau, the petitioner was found absent therefrom and the official receipt book, which had been issued to the petitioner, had been handed over to private persons.

3. The petitioner’s suspension order was revoked by order Annex.3 dated 29.11.2005. A charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (referred to herein after as Ganga Ram. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ‘the Rules of 1958’) was served to the petitioner containing the following 4 charges :-

vkjksi fooj.k la[;k & 1

;g fd vki Jh xaxkjke lka[kyk dk;kZy; lgk;d] [kfut vfHk;ark tkyksj ds v/khu ukdsnkj ds in ij dk;kZy; vkns’k dzekad l[kv@tkyksj LFkk@03@916] fnukad 18-10-2003 ls fujUrj Hk:Mh] [kkuiqj ukds ij fu;qDr FksA fnukad 15-7-2004 dks tc vkidh M~;wVh Hk:Mh ukds ij Fkh vUrxZr [kkuiqj ukdk vkrk gS] Hkz”Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks fljksgh }kjk pSfdax djus ij vki fnukad 15-7-2004 dks ukds ij mifLFkfr ugha feysA bl izdkj vki viuh M~;wVh ds izfr ykijokgh ,oa vuq’kklughu ik;s x;sA ftlds fy, vki mrjnk;h gSA

vkjksi fooj.k la[;k & 2

;g fd mDr xaxkjke lka[kyk ds mDr inLFkkiu ds nkSjku oDr fujh{k.k ,d futh O;fDr ds ikl foHkkxh; jkW;YVh jlhn cqd la[;k ftlesa jlhn la[;k 8101 ls 8150 Fkh] [kkuiqj foHkkxh; ukds ij futh O;fDr ds ikl x;hA ;g jlhn cqd dk;kZy; ls vkids uke fnukad 11-6-2004 dks tkjh dh x;h FkhA vkius foHkkxh; jlhn cqd dks futh O;fDr ds gkFk esa nsdj ljdkjh dk;Z esa ykijokgh n’kkZbZ gSA ;g drZO; vkidh xSj ftEesnkjhiw.kZ gS ,oa lR;fu”Bk lafnX/k ik;h x;h gSA ftlds fy, vki mrjnk;h gSA

vkjksi fooj.k la[;k & 3

;g fd mDr Jh xaxkjke lka[kyk ds mDr inLFkkiu ds nkSjku oDr fujh{k.k ik;k x;k fd og O;fDr ftlds ikl foHkkxh; jlhn cqd Fkh mlh ds ikl voS/k :i ls futh jlhnsa Hkh Fkh ftlls fd ;g jkW;YVh dh olwyh dj jgk Fkk ftlls foHkkx dks jktLo dk uqdlku gqvk ,oa bldh tkudkjh vkidks gksus ij Hkh vki Jh lka[kyk }kjk lgk;d [kfut vfHk;ark] tkyksj dks bldh tkudkjh ugha nh xbZ ,oa ,oa rF; lgk;d [kfut vfHk;ark tkyksj ds /;ku esa ugha yk djds xaHkhj nqjkpj.k ,oa ?kksj ykijokgh dh gS] ftlds fy, vki mrjnk;h gSA

vkjksi fooj.k la[;k & 4

;g fd mDr Jh xaxkjke ds mDr inLFkkiu ds nkSjku ctjh jkW;YVh ukdk [kkuiqj esa fnukad 1-7-2004 ls 15-7-2004 rd nSfud olwyh jkf’k dk fooj.k ,d lknh dkWih esa vafdr fd;k gqvk ik;k x;k ftlesa nSfud ctjh ls tkus okys okguksa dk fooj.k] Vªd] VªsDVj ls olwyh dh xbZ jkf’k dk fooj.k vafdr fd;k gqvk ik;k x;kA mijksDr ctjh ukdksa ls voS/k olwyh djus okys Bsdsnkj ds deZpkfj;ksa us voS/k jlhns cqdsa Jh egsUnz flag ,oa Jh fodzeflag fuoklh nklik }kjk mUgsa nsuk rFkk izfr fnu olwyh dk fglkc ,oa Hkjh gqbZ jlhn cqdsa iqu% izkIr djuk crk;kA Bsdnkj ds deZpkfj;ksa us [kfut foHkkx ds deZpkfj;ksa dk ukdksa ij vkuk tkuk Hkh crk;kA ;g rF; bl ckr dks n’kkZrk gS fd vkids ukds ij voS/k jlhnksa ls Bsdnkjksa }kjk jkW;YVh olwyh dh tk jgh Fkh ijUrq vkius bldh lwpuk vkius fu;U=d vf/kdkjh lgk;d [kfut vfHk;ark tkyksj dks ugh nh ftlls bl laca/k esa dksbZ izHkkoh dk;Zokgh ugh gks ldhA bl izdkj vki inh; drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu esa ?kksj ykijokgh xaHkhj nqjkpj.k ,oa lR;fu”Bk lafnX/k jgh gSA ftlds fy, vki lka[kyk mrjnk;h gSA

4. The inquiry officer appointed to conduct the inquiry, exonerated the petitioner of the charges no.1, 3 & 4 but held him guilty of the charge no.2 vide inquiry report Annex.6 dated 13.6.2007. The petitioner’s defence regarding the charge no.1 that he had to leave the check post on account of acute tooth pain was accepted by the inquiry officer while exonerating the petitioner of the said charge.

5. An F.I.R. came to be registered against the petitioner in the Anti Corruption Bureau with almost similar allegations. After concluding investigation, the concerned officer of A