ISRANI, J.—This D.B. Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge in writ petition No 732/1973 dated April 3, 1986 by which the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed.

2. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order (Annexure-4) dated September 21, 1979 whereby the petitioner has been removed from service as a measure of punishment in disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1958)

3. It will suffice to state that the petitioner was a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service, having been selected for appointment in the said service in the year 1960. From June 1, 1966 to October 4, 1967, he was posted as Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Sarniti Bhadra in District Sriganganagar. One Yash want Singh lodged a written complaint to the Collector, Sriganganagar alleging misappropriation and illegalities in the purchase of french leather (condoms) by the Panchayat Samiti Bhadra. The Deputy District Development Officer seized the record of the Panchayat Samiti and after making enquiry submitted a fact finding report to the Collector, Sriganganagar, on May 1, 1967. On the basis of this report the petitioner was suspended on February 3, 1968 and a first information report was lodged with police against the petitioner on September 25, 1968, and the matter was also referred to the Anti Corruption for taking necessary action. However, the Anti Corruption Department suggested that action be taken against the petitioner departmentally whereupon he was served with a charge sheet on April 29, 1972.

4. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of the enquiry officer, served show cause notice dated September 14, 1977 (Annexure-13) on the petitioner informing him that the State Govt. has provisionally decided to dismiss the petitioner from service and he was required to show cause against the proposed action. The appellant submitted his representation dated September 28, 1979, raised objections against the report of the Enquiry Officer and controverted in details each charge held to be proved against him. The above mentioned representation was referred to R.P.S.C. which after considering the whole matter recommended that the petitioner be removed from service. Thereafter the disciplinary authority passed detailed order dated September 21, 1978, (Annexure-4), in which the evidence relating to various charges and the finding recorded on each charge was considered and the recommendation of the R.P.S.C. was accepted for imposing the punishment of removal from service.

5. Shri Singhi, learned council for the appellant has mainly raised three grounds during the course of arguments. Firstly, it is contended by learned counsel that the petitioner-appellant was not allowed inspection of relevant documents to enable him to prepare the proper defence regarding the charges levelled against him. The learned counsel has pointed out several exhibits but it will be appropriate to refer only Annexure 5, in which three lists of documents are given, which the appellant wanted to inspect. The details of the documents have been given in three lists. It was contended by Shri Chatterjee, learned Govt. Advocate that the appellant was allowed inspection of the record of the Anti Corruption Department, therefore, this grievance of the petitioner-appellant has no force. We have specifically enquired from the learned Govt. Advocate whether the document mentioned in three lists of Annexure 5 are included in the file of Anit Corruption Department. This file was available in Court and after searching the file we were informed that these documents were not available on the file of Anti Corruption Deptt. The appellant wrote a letter dated June 7, 1972, which is available on record in which it was mentioned by him t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document