Point of Law: Disciplinary authority has erroneously failed to admit admissible and material evidence which was already examined by both the enquiry officers and the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer are based on no evidence as cogent reasons have not been supplied.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition seeks to challenge the note of dissent dated 10.09.1997 and the consequential punishment order dated 07.11.1997 whereby he has been punished with the stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect and prays for consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts which require to be noticed are that the petitioner was posted as Mining Engineer, Alwar. A Notification dated 29.01.1991 was issued by the State Government in the Rajasthan Gazatte on 07.02.1991 whereby applications were invited for grant of mining leases for marble in Alwar District. In the said notification, it was notified to the general public that the mining leases for mineral Marble would be sanctioned in accordance with Chapter-11 of the Rajasthan Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1986”). In pursuance of the said notification, many applications were filed in the office of the Mining Engineer, Alwar when the petitioner was working at that time. While the said applications were under scrutiny, a letter dated 31.08.1991 was issued by the Director Mines & Geology Department, Udaipur which was received by the petitioner wherein it was directed that the applications should be disposed of expeditiously. Thereafter, another letter dated 11.9.1991 was issued by the Superintending Mining Engineer, Bharatpur who was controlling officer of the petitioner at the relevant time, stating that in view of campaign to decide the pending applications and taking into consideration the scarcity of time, the petitioner (Mining Engineer, Alwar) was not required to do site inspection and site report in each and every case. The petitioner was required to issue sanction of the mining leases with an additional condition in the sanction order that the exact position of the area sanctioned would be subject to actual demarcation of the site. It was further stated in the said letter that all the applications should be disposed of by the end of September, 1991.

3. The petitioner submits that he was fully exonerated by the Inquiry Officers by two inquiry reports with regard to the same charges. The Inquiry Officers had submitted inquiry reports on 11.4.1994 and 16.12.1995 wherein on the basis of evidence produced before them, a finding was recorded of exoneration relating to all the seven charges as levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that the Government with a pre-determined mind, without specifying the reasons for dis-satisfying with the reports of the inquiry officers, sent a dissenting note and without examining the petitioner’s objections objectively, proceeded to punish the petitioner withholding of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect.

4. It is further stated that the action was violative of principle of natural justice as well as in violation of Clause 9 of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”). It is submitted that the State Government has passed order of punishment without being able to prove the charges thus the findings are wholly perverse.

The charges including the charge of violation of Rule 4 and 6 of the Rules of 1986 and Conservation of Forest Act, 1980 while granting 31 mining marble leases in forest area, issuance of 117 sanctions of mining leases without seeking report from the Forest Department, execution of 54 lease deeds in forest area in violation of Government circular dated 29.10.1991, without waiting for the expiry of 30 days time granted by the Collector for submission of the objection, grant of mining leases in pasture land, not verifying the employment of 12 applicants and rejection of 210 applications on technical grounds.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order is perverse as it fails to take note of the fact that the enquiry officers while exonerating the petitioner, had considered 124 documents filed by