MODI, J.—This is a writ application by A. K. Vyas under Art. 226 of the Constitution by which he seeks to attack the order of the State Government dated the 21st November, 1958 (Ex.1) removing him from service.

2. The petitioner was a Superintendent, Archaeology and Museums, first at Udaipur in 1955 and then at Jodhpur from January, 1956 until the date of his removal. The petitioners case put very briefly is that there was bad blood between him and Mr. S. P. Shri-vastava, who was the Director of Archaeology and Museums at all material times. This bad blood was occasioned by the fact that both the petitioner and Shri Shrivastava were candidates for the headship of the Department of Archaeology and Museums and although the petitioner thought that he was far better qualified than Mr. Shrivastava, the latter stole a march over him. It is further alleged that as a result of this enmity Mr. Shrivastava started making complaints against the petitioner, on account of which, on the 8th of October, 1956 the petitioner was suspended. On the 7th of January, 1957, he was served with a charge sheet which contained 3 charges. We shall mention the relevant charges at the proper place. Mr. B.D. Thakur was first appointed as Enquiry Officer to investigate into the charges against the petitioner. For certain reasons, through which it is not necessary for us to go, it was not possible for Mr. Thakur to make any inquiry into the merits of the case of the petitioner, and he accordingly sent in his report to the Government to that effect. The petitioner had also made his representation to the Government at that stage. It seems that in order to avoid any injustice to the petitioner the State Government by its order dated 26.8.57 appointed Mr. Ahuja, Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, to make a proper enquiry into the case against the petitioner (See Ex. 13). In this order the Government, inter alia, made the following observations which deserve notice:—

"It is not necessary to serve the charge sheet and obtain explanation of Shri Vyas again, but you may please proceed to examine witnesses on behalf of prosecution in the presence of Shri Vyas and give him an adequate opportunity to cross examine them. As the officer is under suspension, the enquiry may please be completed expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of R. 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1950, and your report submitted to Government as early as possible."`

3. Mr. Ahuja made the enquiry and submitted his report, which is Ex. 3. At this stage, we may mention the relevant charges against the petitioner:—

(1) That you did not cooperate with your head of Department and had little respect for his authority. In the official correspondence exchanged by you with him the language of your communications was not only imposite and ironical but also defiant and insolent. This is highly undesirable and amounts to breach of discipline.

(2) ...........................

(3) Shri Durgalal Curator Sardar Museum, Jodhpur was transferred to Jaipur vice Shri J. S. Gahlot with immediate effect vide Govt. order dated 10.8.56. But you declined to relieve Shri Durgalal and accept Shri Gahlot until you were satisfied as to the latters official conduct and character after a detailed study of his past service record. Telegraphic communications making it clear to you that delay in carrying out the transfer orders could lead to your suspension and disciplinary action were also addressed to you. But all these communications produced no result. You have thus, defied and disobeyed Government orders."

A statement of allegations containing all the relevant information on which the aforesaid charges were based was also furnished to the petitioner. He was also allowed to file a fresh written statement or explanation. The Enquiry Officer, Mr. Ahuja, was of opinion that the first charge was fully established against the petitioner and that he was also guilty of the third charge,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document