The State Government has provisionally taken further decision that Shri Sawai Singh be removed from State Service for the said mistake.
The High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur in the said appeal refused to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge of that High Court.
That the said Shri Sawai Singh showed undue favour to one of the companytesting candidates Shri Purna Ram.
At the end of sub paragraph 1 companytaining a declaration by the candidate as to his qualifications the said Chaturbhuj did number strike off one of the two words Panch Sarpanch.
My statement was recorded by Collector Ex.
He manipulated the withdrawal of Shri Jeewan Dass a dummy candidate of Shri Chaturbhuj who was companytesting candidate against Shri Purna Ram.
Shri Jiwan Dass stated thus in his evidence which was on the record of the enquiry I withdrew my numberination paper at 3 P.M. I only heard in the evening that the numberination paper of Chaturbhuj had been rejected.
The writ petition was heard by P.N. Signal, J. as the learned judge then was of the High Court and he by his order dated 31st August, 1971 dismissed the same summarily.
Perusal of the enquiry report makes perfunctory reading companyparing the evidence of Chaturbhuj and the appellant it is difficult to accept on what basis the enquiry H Officer accepted the Chaturbhujs version.
The statement of allegations was also sent alongwith the forwarding letter and it was mentioned in the said statement as follows Shri Sawai Singh manipulated the withdrawal of Shri Jeevan Dass a dummy candidate of Chaturbhuj by cheating.
He denied the charge levelled against him.
No one told me that numberination paper of Chaturbhuj had been accepted, and on that basis, I should withdraw I had stated in portion A to of the statement marked Ex.
A reply to the said charge sheet was submitted by the appellant.
This numberice, however, was later on cancelled and a fresh show cause numberice was issued.
In view of the above, the numberination paper was rejected.
He further companymitted forgery by effecting erasion in the word panch on the numberination paper of Shri Chatur Bhuj and malafidely and improperly rejected the numberination form of Chaturbhuj and thereby acted in furtherance of the prospects of the election of Shri Purna Ram as Sarpanch Sardi.
Shri Jiwan Dass and Shri Jiwan Ram withdrew their candidature and Shri Purna Ram was left alone in the field and was, therefore, elected to the office of Sarpanch.
The Enquiry Officer did number discuss the inherent improbabilities of the statements of Chaturbhuj which will be numbered later.
At that time, the appellant was working as Superintendent, Sheep Wool, Nagpur.
Shri Chaturbhuj on 8th July, 1966 was shown the numberination from Ex.
The election was to take place on 26th December, 1960 and the date for submission of numberination forms was 25th December, 1960.
The second charge i.e. the withdrawal of Jiwan Dass can only be understood in the light of the statement of Shri Jiwan Dass.
The enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27th March, 1967.
Shri Tapash Chandra Roy, learned advocate for the appellant, urged before us three main submissions, namely, the charges were number clear ii there was numberevidence to support the charges and on the companytrary iii the evidence on record was companytrary to the charges made.
P.ll was taken by the steno of the Collector in the absence of Collector.
By an order dated 4th November, 1965, the Government appointed the Additional Commissioner for departmental enquiry, Rajasthan, Jaipur as an Enquiry Officer to hold the enquiry against the appellant.
He companyld number say whether any rubbing or erasion of the word Panch had taken place or number.
The numberination paper was said to be defective for the following reasons In the opening line the Ward Number was number filled in and the space provided therefore was left blank In the second line out of the words Panch Sarpanch one of the two was number struck out so that there was numberindication whether the numberination was for the office of Panch or that of Sarpanch.
It may be mentioned that what was the dishonest motive except the inference from the rejection of the numberination paper on alleged improper grounds numberhing was indicated in the report of the Enquiry Officer.
m e numberination paper filed by Shri Chaturbhuj was alleged to have been found incomplete and it was, therefore, rejected.
He manipulated the withdrawal of Jiwan Dass, the dummy candidate of Shri Chaturbhuj who was the companytesting candidate against Shri Purna Ram and iii Shri Sawai Singh companymitted forgery by effecting erasion of the word panch on the numberination paper of Shri Chaturbhuj and malafidely rejected his numberination paper.
The appellant was an employee of the Rajasthan Government and was appointed as returning officer to companyduct Panchayat elections at Sardi in Panchayat Samiti Ladnun in the district of Nagpur held in the month of December, 1960.
P.13 that the form was filled up by him in his own hand except the signatures which were done by Shri Chaturbhuj himself in his presence.
P.13 and he admitted that Ex.
I do number know whether symbol was issued to Chaturbhuj or number.
To companyplete the narration of events, the government by an order dated 5th April, 1971 accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and directed his removal from service.
These were number companysidered by the High Court.
In fact the appellant had participated in the enquiry.
The said Shri Sawai Singh companymitted forgery by effecting erasion in the word panch on the numberination paper of Shri Chaturbhuj and malafidely and improperly rejected his numberination form.
In the third line of the blank space again intended to specify the office, the said Chaturbhuj had filled in his own name thus instead of stating that he was proposing himself as candidate for the office of Panch or Sarpanch, it was found that he was proposing himself as Chaturbhuj.
The appellant filed a special Appeal before the Division Bench.
From the Judgment and Order 7.4.1972 of the Rajasthan High Court in Special Appeal No.
The appellant gave an elaborate reply to the said numberice.
The statement of Ex.
The State Government has provisionally accepted the decision.
The said appeal was also summarily dismissed on 7th April, 1972.
Hence Shri Sawai Singh is hereby given an opportunity that if he wants to file a representation against the provisional decision he may present it within 15 days From the date OF receipt of this letter to the undersigned.
In order to prove the charge against him it was necessary to establish that Shri Chaturbhuj had filed numberination being Ex.
That does number by itself exonerate the department to bring home the charges.
P13 bears his signatures and that he had submitted it for Sarpanch but he did number say that whether he had struck off the word panch in the numberination paper so as to companyvey his proposal for Sarpanch.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by special leave granted by this companyrt against the order dated 7th April, 1972 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jodhpur, in Special Appeal No.
I cannot say what he recorded in my statement.
74 of 1972.
The H learned single judge had dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of termination of his services.
I had number stated as marked A to and to in Ex.
The second charge was about companymitting forgery effecting erasion of the word panch on the numberination paper of Shri Chaturbhuj.
For that reason I had withdrawn my numberination form.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
MANOHAR On the 2nd July, 1965, the government of Rajasthan informed the appellant that an enquiry was proposed to be held against him on charge which was as follows That the said Shri Sawai Singh, while functioning as District Sheep Wool Officer, Nagaur, during the year 1960 was appointed as Returning Officer to companyduct Panchayat Election at Sardi in Panchayat Samiti Ladnun in the month of December, 1960.
74 of 1972.
I was number present when Chaturbhuj had asked the reason for rejection of his numberination paper.
P.11 and also by C.I. which is Ex.
E.H. Pl D.E. stated that his numberination paper was duly filled in by him.
The charges framed have been numbered namely, i the appellant showed undue favour to one of the candidates Shri Purna Ram.
2179 N of 1972.
On cross examination the Departmental Officer stated that my numberination form was filled by Sohan Singh.
The steno was drunk at that time.
Four persons, namely, Shri Chaturbhuj, Shri Purna Ram, Shri Jiwan Ram and Shri Jiwan Dass filed their numberination forms.
This was taken by the Enquiry Officer to mean that the numberination paper was companyplete in all respects and wrongly rejected.
On 3rd October, 1968, the government issued a show cause numberice to the appellant which was as follows According to the report of the Enquiry Officer the charge has been proved to this extent that Shri Sawai Singh with dishonest intention to declare candidate Poornaram uncontested successful Sarpanch made changes in the numberination form of Shri Chaturbhuj which was companyplete at the time when was presented and thus made it incomplete and thereafter illegally rejected it.
I had withdrawn my numberination paper voluntarily.
Tapas Roy, S.K. Jain for the Appellant.
P.12 that I was told regarding the acceptance of the numberination form of Chaturbhuj.
He also companyld number say on seeing the numberination paper that the word Panch in the numberination paper marked A by the Additional Commissioner Departmental Enquiry had been struck off or number.
F Badri Das Sharma, Surya Kant Sharma and Miss Maya Rao for the Respondent.
It is difficult for any officer to meet a charge of this nature.
I do number remember whether I had given the statement marked to in Ex.
There were several other companytradictions in the said statement of Puran Chand which were mentioned in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the writ petition before the High Court.
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court.
I was number dummy candidate.
P.12 P.A. to sic .
P.13 marked to and I to J was in the hand writing of Shri Chaturbhuj himself and also the signatures K to L were in the handwriting of Shri Chatur Bhuj.
When the form was shown to him, he stated in his examination in chief that the name of Shri Chaturbhuj in Ex.
It is clear that the first charge was number clear, in the sense, how the appellant had alleged to have manipulated the withdrawal of Jiwan Dass.
Thereafter on refusal of the High Court to grant a certificate, by special leave, this appeal has companye up A before us nearly 15 years after the termination of employment.
