DAVE, C.J.—This is a writ application under Art.226 of the Constitution of India by Dr. Kishan Singh Inda who is C.A.S. Class II in the Medical Department of the Rajasthan State.

2. It is directed against the order of the respondent dated 25th August, 1960, whereby the petitioner was punished on two charges. The first charge against him was that he used service stamps in his private correspondence, from his home-town Balesar, with the Chief Medical Officer, Sirohi, when he was on leave between 22nd October, 1954 and 12th March, 1955 and thus he misappropriated government funds. This charge was held to be proved and he was given a warning to be more careful in future.

3. The next charge against him was that in June, 1957 when he was posted at Banklee, he was transferred from there to Bassi. He did dot carry out this order under false pretext and appelied for sick leave without being sick. Moreover, he approached higher authorities for getting his transfer set aside and thus committed a breach of discipline. Eventually, he was posted at Maroth and then he joined at that place on 11th March, 1958. This charge was also found proved and he was punished with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that the Government had proceeded against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Servants ( Classification, Control and Appeal ), Rules, 1958, which will hereinafter be called the Rules, that he was charge-sheeted and also supplied with statement of allegations and asked if he wanted personal hearing and witnesses to be examined in his defence ; but insted of making any enquiry thereafter, the respondent straight-way proceeded under Rule 17 of the Rules and awarded him punishment without giving him any opportunity of hearing and examining any evidence in his defence. It is strenuously urged by the petitioners learned counsel that his client was seriously prejudiced in his defence and that he has been penalised by violating the very first principles of natural justice.

5. In the reply tiled on behalf of the respondents, an attempt has been made to justify the action taken against the petitioner.

6. We have gone into the notice dated 2nd February, 1960 (Ex.1) given to the petitioner as also the charges (Ex.2), the statement of allegations ( Ex.3), the reply filed by the petitioner (Ex.4), the order punishing the petitioner (Ex.5) and the order passed on review on 31st January, 1961 (Ex.7). A perusal of Ex. 1 clearly shows that the respondent wanted to proceed against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules. In the very first sentence of the notice, the petitioner was intimated that "the Government proposed to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 16 of the Rules." It was further mentioned that the statement of allegations and the charges framed on its basis were being sent to him and in para 2, he was required to submit a written statement of his defence within fifteen days and to state (a) if he desired to be heard in person, (b) if he wanted to call witnesses in support of his defence, (c) If he wanted to produce any documentary evidence in his defence and if so, he was called upon to furnish the list of documents as also the list of witnesses together with their names and addresses.

7. A perusal of the petitioners reply (Ex.4) shows that he made it explicitly clear that he wanted a personal hearing and he further stated the he would furnish the list of documents and the names of the witnesses to be examined in his defence after a personal hearing is given to him. At the same time, he stoutly denied the correctness of both the charges levelled against him.

8. It may be noted here that the notice Ex. 1 was given to the petitioner on 2nd February, 1960 for using service stamps during the period between 22nd October, 1954 and 12-3-1955 that is, after a lapse of about five years. Similarly, the second charge was about some wrong which was said to have been committed by him in the middle of 1957, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document