The Department shall be at liberty to call for any of the witnesses, whose affidavits have been filed by the appellant for cross examination.
The respondent was suspended on 3.2.1968 and first information report was lodged with police against the respondent on 25.9.1968 and the matter was also referred to the Anti Corruption Department for taking necessary action.
It was companytended that such action was in violation of Sub rule 5 of Rule 16 of The Rajasthan Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1958.
10,000/ was caused to the Panchayat Samiti.
The respondent submitted his representation against the report of the Enquiry Officer.
The respondent filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court challenging the aforesaid order of removal from service.
On an appeal filed by the respondent, Learned Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Learned Single Judge as well as the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority and gave the following direction The appellant shall be allowed inspection of documents mentioned in the three lists Annexure 5 and will be allowed to file any additional reply, if he so desires.
The disciplinary authority then passed a detailed order dated 21.9.1978 and after recording his finding on each charge and companysidering the recommendation of the Public Service Commission imposed a penalty of removal from service.
The disciplinary authority after companysidering the report of the Enquiry Officer served a show cause numberice dated September 14, 1977 on the respondent informing him that the State Government had provisionally decided to dismiss the respondent from service and he was required to show cause against the said action.
As regards charge No.
The Learned Single Judge by his order dated April 3, 1986 dismissed the Writ Petition.
The appellant shall also be allowed to be represented by a legal practitioner.
Another companytention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that he was number permitted to engage a legal practitioner to represent him during the companyrse of the inquiry, though the departmental numberinee was a person in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Anti Corruption Department and had remained Prosecuting Inspector for a number of years.
A written companyplaint was lodged against the respondent to the Collector, Sriganganagar alleging misappropriation and illegalities in the purchase of French leather companydoms by the Panchayat Samiti Bhadra during the period of the posting of the respondent as Vikas Adhikari.
The disciplinary authority after companysidering in detail the evidence relating to the various charges recorded its finding on each charge.
This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 7.2.1990, reversing the judgment of the Learned Single Judge.
1, the disciplinary authority held that the Department had failed to establish the first part of the said charge that French leathers were number actually purchased by the petitioner respondent before this Court .
The Anti Corruption Department suggested that action be taken against the respondent departmentally and as such the respondent was served with a charge sheet on April 29, 1972.
It is further directed that the Disciplinary Authority shall companyclude the enquiry as far as possible within a period of nine months from the date of this order.
The representation submitted by the respondent was referred to the Public Service Commission which after companysidering the entire matter recommended the removal of the respondent from service.
The request of the petitioner for engaging a lawyer was declined for the reason that numberlawyer was appearing on behalf of the department.
The disciplinary authority also found that the third part of this charge, namely, the petitioner made payment for French leathers at 98 paise per piece whereas the prevalent market price during the relevant period was only 20 paise per piece was also established from the evidence on record and that an avoidable loss to the extent of Rs.
The parties would be at liberty to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence.
The disciplinary authority, however, found that second part of the charge of overwriting and interpolations in the record was established and there was sufficient evidence on the record to prove that there was numberfirm bearing the name of M s. M.R. Company at Bhadra or at Shahdra, Delhi and someone had arranged the supply of French leathers in the name of a bogus firm and from the evidence on record it was, established that the petitioner was aware of this fact and if this had number been so, the petitioner would number have become party to this scandal by actively associating himself in making overwriting interpolations on the record.
It is directed that the appellant shall present himself before the Disciplinary Authority on 14 February, 1990 at 10 a.m. The State of Rajasthan aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Learned Division Bench has companye in appeal before this Court We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record.
The petitioner did number choose to exercise the said right and pleaded his own case.
From June 1, 1966 to October 4, 1967 he was posted as Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra in District Sriganganagar.
The Enquiry Officer shall submit his report in the light of the entire evidence and material which has companye on record.
Shri S.K. Dutt Sharma, respondent herein was a Member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service since 1960.
Charge No.
