Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. Petitioner, by way of this writ petition, has prayed to quash and set aside the enquiry report dated 21.08.2001, punishment order dated 17.05.2003, appellate order dated 03.11.2003 and the review order dated 10.08.2007 thereby holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him, dismissing him from service and rejecting the departmental appeal as well as the review petition affirming the order of punishment.

2. Brief facts, which have come on record, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in 5th Battalion of RAC. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules of 1958]. The Adjutant, 5th Battalion of RAC submitted enquiry report on 21.08.2001 and found the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. The allegations against the petitioner were that he had submitted forged certificate regarding his age and it was alleged that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 24.07.1970 while the certificate mentioned the date of birth as 08.11.1976 and he had already crossed the maximum age limit of 21 years and has got his appointment fraudulently. In this regard, an FIR No. 514/1999 was also registered under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC on 16th September, 1999 at Police Station Nadbai. The second charge levelled against the petitioner was with regard to the having demanded dowry from his wife, causing cruelty, giving beating and misbehaving with her in inhuman manner. It was alleged that he had thrown out his wife and four years' old daughter and had also entered into second marriage for which an FIR No. 513/1999 came to be registered against him on 21.06.1999 under Section 494, 398A IPC and charge-sheet had also been submitted before the Court of ACJM No. 1, Bharatpur where the trial was going on. Apart from the misconduct, offence of entering into second marriage in terms of Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 was also alleged. The enquiry officer conduct enquiry by recording evidence and held the charges proved. On account thereof, orders were passed of dismissing him from service.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry has not been conducted in a fair and proper manner. With regard to the case registered under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, case was not found to be proved and the final report submitted by the police had been accepted by the Court of ACJM No. 1, Bharatpur and thus, on the self same charges, the petitioner could not have been held guilty in departmental enquiry. With regard to the second charge, it is submitted by the learned counsel that after holding a trial, the petitioner had been acquitted of the offence alleged under Section 494, 498A IPC vide judgment dated 16.07.2003. It was submitted that the enquiry was conducted ex-parte without giving prior notice to the departmental counsel appointed by the petitioner and no opportunity of cross-examination was given to him.

4. After issuing notices of the writ petition, the respondents submitted their reply wherein it was pointed out that the petitioner had been rightly held guilty for Charge No. 1. It was stated that in his application form for getting appointment, in column number 9, he had mentioned his education as Middle Pass from Ambedkar Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, Bansikala, District Bharatpur and in Transfer Certificate of Ambedkar Adarsh Upper Primary School, Bansikaloa, Bharatpur, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 08.11.1976 and the admission number was mentioned as 1252. On the marks-sheet of the petitioner, Roll Number, Year and Session had not been mentioned. It was stated that on enquiry and investigation, it was found that the admission number 1252 was that of one Kumari Kamlesh Devi who had studied from 11.07.1994 to 15.05.1995. Copy of the SR Register has also been