ORDER :

1. The present petition has been preferred against the punishment order dated 22.04.1999 (Annex.28) passed in pursuance to the inquiry report dated 09.07.1997 (Annex.26) whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services.

2. The petitioner who was working as a Junior Engineer with the respondent-Irrigation Department was preliminary found responsible for some shortage in stock of coal as well as for change in the grade of coal. On basis of preliminary inquiry, he was suspended vide order dated 19.06.1985 and subsequently, charge-sheet dated 19.05.1987 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1958’) was served on him on 30.07.1987.

3. Three charges were framed against him. Pending enquiry, vide order dated 06.03.1988, pending inquiry the petitioner was reinstated in the services w.e.f. the same date. Meanwhile, the Inquiry Officer was appointed in the matter and after completion of inquiry he submitted the inquiry report dated 09.07.1997 (Annex.26) to the Disciplinary Authority. Vide order dated 22.04.1999, the Disciplinary Authority, after the service of the inquiry report on the petitioner, submission of reply by him and after affording opportunity of hearing to him, proceeded on to impose the punishment of dismissal from services upon the petitioner. It is against the said order dated 22.04.1999 that the present writ petition has been preferred.

4. Learned Senior counsel Shri Manoj Bhandari appearing for the petitioner made the following submissions:

(i) the complete inquiry proceedings in the present matter being conducted totally dehors the law, stood vitiated. Forty documents as requested by the petitioner to be supplied to him were not supplied to him despite continuous oral as well as written requests. Only six out of the forty documents were supplied to him and he was not even permitted to inspect the remaining documents. Therefore, in terms of Rule 16 (6) of the Rules of 1958, the basic requirement having not been complied with, the inquiry stood vitiated.

(ii) So far as the shortage in stock of coal is concerned, the complete details and explanations were given by the petitioner which clearly proved that there was no shortage of stock as alleged but the same was not even considered by the Inquiry Officer and further by the Disciplinary Authority. The findings of Inquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority passed totally in ignorance of material available on record and reply as preferred by the petitioner, deserve to be quashed.

(iii) The statements of witnesses as examined by the Inquiry Officer clearly proved that the stock was physically verified and therefore, it could not have been concluded that there was shortage of any coal. Further, in the criminal proceedings, it was specifically held by the Court that 235.52 Metric Ton (MT) coal was supplied to the contractor and the said finding was even affirmed by the High Court. Therefore, the allegation of shortage of 428.14 MT coal was clearly not proved on record.

(iv) So far as the change of grade of coal is concerned, it was clearly proved on record that no Grade “D” coal was available in stock whereas it was Grade “F” only. Exhibit A-37 was a document sufficient to prove the fact that the coal available was of Grade “F” only and therefore, the allegation of change in grade of coal and issuance of the same to the contractor to benefit him is totally baseless. None of the witnesses as examined by the Inquiry Officer deposed against the petitioner and no charge as alleged against him can be termed to be proved against him.

(v) The Inquiry Officer did not even apply his mind and just in a cursory manner, without appreciation of evidence, concluded against the petitioner. The said findings of the Inquiry Officer are neither reasoned nor plausible.

(vi) The present was admittedly a case of joint inquiry and exoneration of one of the delinquents Shri K.C. Kothari proves t