Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Pitted against the colossal power of the State, the petitioner has sought the refuge of this Court for a number of reliefs. He has not just challenged the order dated 16.07.1994 whereby his pay-scale was suddenly reduced, not just challenged the order dated 11.08.1994 whereby the recovery order was passed, but most importantly he has challenged the suspension order dated 21.07.1994, the charge-sheet dated 25.07.1994, the dismissal order dated 27.04.1995 and ultimately, the order dated 01.05.1995 whereby the dismissal order was confirmed.

2. This case has had a chequered history which is as under :-

According to the petitioner, on 20.01.1979, he was appointed as a Welfare Officer in the Central Social Welfare Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Board', for short). He continued to work on the said post till 04.03.1986. Vide order dated 05.03.1986, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Project Officer and continued to hold the said post till 01.11.1988. In November, 1988 he was sent on deputation from the Central Board to the Rajasthan State Social Welfare Board (hereinafter referred as 'the State Board', for short) as the Secretary of the State Board. Vide order dated 16.02.1991, he was absorbed as the Secretary of the State Board in the pay-scale of Rs.3,000-4,500/-. This absorption was done after due consultation with the Central Board. From 1991 till 1993, the petitioner discharged his functions satisfactorily. There were no complaints about his work. However, according to him, after the appointment of respondent No.6, Smt. Sariya Khan, on 26.03.1993, as the Chairperson of the State Board, troubles began for him.

Further, it is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 31.03.1993, the State empowered the Secretary to work as the Treasurer of the State Board. Thus, after 31.03.1993, the petitioner was working both as the Secretary and as the Treasurer of the State Board. During his tenure as the Treasurer, Smt. Sariya Khan wanted the petitioner to approve grant of one voluntary organization, namely Ravindra Tagore Vidhyala Samiti situated in Rawatsar, Distt. Ganganagar for the establishment of the Family Counseling Centre. However, as there were complaints against the said voluntary organization for having misused the grant given earlier by the State Board, the petitioner refused to tow her line. Because of his refusal, Smt. Sariya Khan started bearing a grudge against him. Thus, began his victimization.

On 31.03.1994, Smt. Sariya Khan sought six explanations in a single day from the petitioner. These explanations were offered by him vide his reply dated 25.05.1994. Consequently, vide order dated 16.07.1994, without giving him an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner's pay-scale was suddenly reduced from Rs.3000-4500/- to Rs.2500-4250/-. On 21.07.1994, the petitioner was suspended; on 11.08.1994 an order of recovery of Rs.49,773/- was passed. Since the petitioner was suspended and since subsistence allowances was being paid, surprisingly, the order dated 11.08.1994 directed the recovery from his subsistence allowances. Lastly, on 25.07.1994, the petitioner was given a memo of charge-sheet containing eight charges. These charges related either to the petitioner's recommendation for grant of money to different institutions, or for retaining files by him.

On 06.08.1994, while submitting his interim reply, the petitioner reserved his right to file a detailed reply. According to the charge-sheet, the Board wanted to rely upon fifty-seven documents. On 19.08.1994, the petitioner requested the State Board to give him copies of the documents as the copies of the said documents were not given to him along with the charge-sheet. Vide letter dated 07.09.1994, the respondents gave copies of only forty documents out of fifty-seven documents relied upon by them for the purpose of carrying out the departmental inquiry. Since only some documents had been supplied, while the others were retained, vide lette

Click Here to Read the rest of this document