IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid punishment order before imposing major penalties, the importance of procedural compliance in disciplinary proceedings, and the need to prevent undue harassment of individuals.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, has twofold grievance i.e. (i) the impugned order dated 14.12.2001 (Annexure-P/18), proposing to cause recovery from him, ostensibly for causing loss to the department, was issued by an official not competent in law, and in any case, it is in violation of the applicable service Rules; (ii) without issuing any punishment order or providing an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the punishment, an adverse entry cannot be made in the petitioner's service book imposing a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect.

2. Relevant facts of the case are as follows:

2.1 The petitioner was working as Village Level Worker -cum-Secretary (a class-III post) of Gram Panchayat Sakdar. A charge-sheet dated 31.05.1996 (Annexure-P/1) was issued to the petitioner by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti. Allegation against him was of misappropriation of money qua an incident, of year 1993-94. Charge sheet was issued under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Rules, 1961 (referred to as ‘Rules of 1961’).

2.2 An audit was conducted on 20.04.1994, when the petitioner was posted at Gram Panchayat, Sarota. No objections were raised regarding his work. No discrepancies were identified by the audit party as mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 31.05.1996.

2.3 However, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 17.06.1996 (Annexure-P/2) in connection with the aforementioned charge-sheet.

2.4 The statement of allegations dated 29.08.1996 (Annexure-P/4) was provided to the petitioner thereafter. Upon receiving it, he submitted an application dated 01.10.1996 (Annexure-P/5) requesting the documents forming the basis of the charges against him. When no response was received to this application, the petitioner filed a reply to the charge-sheet on 10.10.1996 (Annexure-P/6).

2.5 Later, after receiving petitioner’s reply to chargesheet, the suspension was revoked by the respondents through an office order dated 02.11.1996 (Annexure-P/3).

2.6 As it turned out, by a letter dated 01.01.1997 (Annexure-P/8) issued by respondent No.3, the petitioner was informed of being held guilty in the departmental inquiry, and the said letter was forwarded for the petitioner's personal hearing.

2.7 Based on the Inquiry Report dated 27.08.1997 (Annexure-P/9), notices dated 02.09.1997 and 14.05.1998 were issued to the petitioner for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 29,565/-.

2.8 Subsequently, the petitioner, vide a letter dated 01.03.1998 (Annexure-P/13), requested respondent No.3 to provide a copy of the inquiry report. However, it was not provided. Without the copy of the inquiry report, the petitioner could not effectively defend himself before the competent authority.

2.9 Relying on the inquiry report dated 27.08.1997, an entry was made in the service record of Petitioner. Respondent No.4 also issued a recovery letter against the petitioner on 14.12.2001 (Annexure-P/18), forcing the petitioner to deposit the recovery amount.

2.10 The petitioner, aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, has thus filed the instant writ petition.

3. The stand taken in the reply on merits is that if the petitioner had any grievances regarding the inquiry, he should have raised objections upon receiving the letter dated 01.09.1997 for a personal hearing. However, no such objections were raised.

3.1 The inquiry was conducted properly, and the findings regarding the charges are well-reasoned.

3.2 Order dated 14.12.2001 (Annexure-P/18) was validly issued by the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Pali, for the recovery of Rs. 26,356/-.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

5. I am of the view that the grievance of the petitioner on both the counts, as enumerated in the opening paragraph of the instant order, is justified. He has been wronged on both counts, and the actions of the respondents are not sustainable. Let us see how.

6. Adverting