Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, especially when dismissal is involved, requiring adequate time for the employee to respond.

ORDER :

1. Instant writ petition lays challenge to the order dated 04.09.2024, passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-16), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services.

2. The requisite facts in brief are that on 01.09.1997, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade – III, whereafter he got promoted on the post of Teacher Grade – II.

3. A criminal case came to be registered against him (FIR No.249/2012) on 23.09.2012 at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. In furtherance whereof, he was sent to the judicial custody on 15.12.2012 and he remained in custody upto 21.12.2012.

4. As petitioner remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, respondent No.2 placed him under suspension vide order dated 22.03.2015.

5. Thereafter, on 08.02.2022, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceeding under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1958’) against the petitioner and vide memorandum of charges dated 25.02.2022, two charges were framed, which revolved around petitioner’s involvement in the criminal case and attempt to conceal the factum of he being imprisoned.

6. Another charge-sheet dated 18.04.2022 came to served upon the petitioner for remaining absent without leave between 24.08.2016 and 21.02.2022.

7. During the course of inquiry, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure-12) and raised a grievance that the documents which were provided to him were only Exhibit P-01 to P-96, whereas the Department has relied upon more documents being Exhibit P-01 to P-135 and he was spontaneously asked to accept/deny the documents and those documents had become part of disciplinary proceedings.

8. The petitioner had asked the Inquiry Officer to provide copies of the additional record/documents and also sought time in this regard so that he could defend his case after verifying the documents.

9. The Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry and furnished a report dated 28.07.2024.

10. On receipt of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 17.08.2024, stating inter-alia that charges framed against him have been found proved and asked him to furnish his defense by 03.09.2024.

11. Immediately on receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner sent a representation/letter dated 29.08.2024 and requested the Disciplinary Authority to allow him a month’s time to file representation/reply as his father was indisposed.

12. The Disciplinary Authority, however, proceeded to pass the order impugned dated 04.09.2024 and dismissed the petitioner from services.

13. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel challenged the inquiry report dated 28.07.2024 so also the order of dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 04.09.2024 on various grounds which can be summarised as under:-

(i) The Disciplinary Authority has violated the principles of natural justice and in spite of petitioner’s request, no time was allowed to file representation/reply to the show cause notice dated 17.08.2024;

(ii) Since the criminal case pursuant to the FIR No.249/2012 was pending, it was incumbent upon the respondents to keep the disciplinary proceeding in abeyance;

(iii) The inquiry report dated 28.07.2024 suffers from irregularity, inasmuch as the documents which were provided to the petitioner were only Exhibit P-01 to P-96, whereas the record with the Disciplinary Authorit