ORDER :

The brief facts of the case are as under:-

1. The petitioner who is working as a Constable for the respondent No.3 Department has preferred the present writ petition against the order dated 14.03.1995 (Annex.-6), whereby his services were terminated.

2. A memorandum along with the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 10.02.1994 with a charge that on 27.10.1993, when the petitioner along with the other constable Bhagirath Ram were sent on challan guard duty to present an accused Devendra before the Court, the accused absconded from the custody. It was alleged that the accused escaped at about 02:00 p.m., whereas the said incident was reported at 06:30 p.m. in the evening and that too at P.S. Mahamandir and not the police station where the incident happened. Consequently, the departmental proceedings under Rule 16/18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was initiated against the petitioner. An inquiry Report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding the petitioner as well as the other constable Bhagirath Ram guilty. On the submission of the inquiry Report, the disciplinary authority issued notice to the petitioner to which the reply was filed by him. After considering the reply, the disciplinary authority proceeded on to hold the petitioner guilty and punished him with the dismissal of service. The said order dated 14.03.1995 was put to appeal and the same was also rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 21.12.1996. A review against the same was preferred before the Governor of Rajasthan, which was also dismissed on 26.10.2004 (Annex.-11). Against the said impugned orders, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

3. The first and the foremost ground raised by the petitioner is that in the criminal proceedings initiated against him for the same offence, the benefit of doubt has been given by the Criminal Court vide judgment dated 21.06.2002 (Annex.-12) and therefore, in terms of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the same benefit ought to have been granted to him by the disciplinary authority in the departmental proceedings also.

4. The second ground raised by the petitioner is that the charges levelled against the petitioner and the other constable Bhagirath Ram were same but he has been punished with dismissal of service, whereas Bhagirath Ram has been punished only with a fixed pay for a period of 5 years. Counsel argued that both the accused stood on the same footing and were levelled with the same charges and therefore, discriminatory treatment meted to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority is totally uncalled for. The next ground raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was granted to him during the disciplinary proceedings. Counsel further submitted that the appellate and the revisional authority did not apply mind and just affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority without any basis or reason.

5. Although not pleaded in the writ petition, counsel raised certain other grounds also during the course of the arguments. Counsel argued that no procedure as prescribed under law was followed during the disciplinary proceedings. No list of witnesses or documents was supplied to him; he was not accorded any opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses; a copy of the preliminary inquiry Report was not supplied to him. He further submitted that in the inquiry report, his designation was mentioned to be LHC, whereas he was a constable only and because of the wrong designation being mentioned, a disproportionate punishment has been awarded to him. Counsel also argued that the charge levelled against him was of misconduct, whereas the finding given by the disciplinary authority is of conspiracy and he has been punished on the basis of the finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner was involved in a conspiracy with the relatives of the accused Devendra and had pur