Honble MATHUR, J.–By this petition for writ, a challenge is given by the petitioner to the order dated 16.1.1999 passed by the disciplinary authority i.e., the Government of Rajasthan imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by a memorandum dated 15.4.1995 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958.

(2). By the memorandum dated 15.4.1995, the petitioner was directed to submit an explanation for the allegations of misconduct levelled against him. The allegations pertain to the year 1982-83 when the petitioner was holding the post of Sub- Divisional Soil Conservator Officer. In all, four allegations were levelled against him. The allegation No.1 is that the petitioner while holding the office above changed the name of office from Sub-Divisional Soil Conservator Officer, DPAP, Bikaner to the office of Assistant Soil Conservator Engineer, DPAP, Bikaner. The allegation No.2 is that the petitioner advanced a sum of Rs.1400/- for repairing Government vehicle and he withheld this money unauthorisedly for a period of three months. The allegation No.3 is that the petitioner erroneously withdrawn some amount for repairing of Government equipments. The allegation No.4 is that the petitioner made the payment of salary to one Shri Shambhu Singh, Tracer though he remained absent from duties from 8.11.1982 to 19.11.1982.

(3). The petitioner by a communication dated 8.5.1993 while denying the allegations levelled against him made a request to the respondents to permit him to inspect the relevant record, as the allegations were pertaining to year 1982-83. The petitioner also stated in the communication dated 8.5.1993 that as the charge-sheet has been served upon him at quite a belated stage, therefore, he shall not be in a position to defend himself effectively. The respondents treated the communication dated 8.5.1993 as reply to the charge-sheet and appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into theallegations levelled against the petitioner.

(4). The Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry and submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority on 10.4.1996. The Inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte against the petitioner as the petitioner failed to attend inquiry proceedings on 19.1.1996. After proceeding ex parte the Inquiring Authority recorded the statement of one Shri Gurcharan Singh (PW.1) to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer on basis of the statement given by the Shri Gurcharan Singh and on relying upon certain documents marked as Ex.1 to Ex.25 found the petitioner guilty for all the four allegations levelled under the memo dated 15.4.1995.

(5). The Disciplinary Authority, after receiving the inquiry report and record of the inquiry, by the order impugned imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension upon the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same preferred a review petition under Rule 34 of the rules of 1958. The same also stood rejected by an order dated 22.2.2000 under the order of the Governor of Rajasthan. Hence, this petition is preferred by the petitioner.

(6). A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is contended by the respondents that a proposal was received from Agriculture Department for initiating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the rules of 1958 against the petitioner on 28.3.1988. The matter was examined by the competent authority and thereafter under the memorandum dated 15.4.1995 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The respondents have also contended that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is an order with sufficient reasons. It is also stated that the petitioner was found guilty by the Inquiry Officer, and therefore, the disciplinary Authority while accepting the findings given by the Inquiry Officer imposed punishment of compulsory ret

Click Here to Read the rest of this document