CW 2491/99 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2491/99 Chandmal Sharma Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 11/04/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Narendra Mishra, for petitioner Mr. Shiv Lal Meena, Dy.G.A., for State *** Instant petition has been filed assailing order Ann.3 dated 8th May, 1997 whereby after holding inquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958, petitioner was held guilty and punished with the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect - against which, appeal preferred by him was dismissed by a speaking order vide order Ann.5 dated 27th January, 1999. Petitioner was working as Field Worker. For the delinquency committed by him, he was served with the charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules, 1958 along with memorandum dated 16th November, 1992 [Ann.1] there were two charges against him – charge no.1 was that on 9th September, 1992 while he was under intoxication forcibly entered in the room of Director, Medical & Health and used unparliamentary language and second charge against him was that he violated Rule 26 of Rajasthan Civil Service Conduct Rules. After the charge sheet was served, a regular inquiry was conducted by Joint Director in which statements of Senior Personal Assistant Shri Abdul Rahoof attached to the Director and of R.C. Ramavtar Mehta who was also sitting in the chamber at the relevant time were recorded. Despite affording opportunity to petitioner, no person was examined on his behalf. The inquiry officer held CW 2491/99 [2] petitioner guilty for both the charges. The disciplinary authority agreed with the finding recorded of guilt and still considered appropriate to inflict minor penalty upon petitioner imposing two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. Appeal preferred by him was also dismissed by a speaking order Ann.5 dated 23rd January, 1999. Counsel for petitioner submits that inquiry was initiated under Rule 16 of Rules against him, but copy of inquiry report was never supplied to him which has certainly caused prejudice to him. It is relevant to mention that in the appeal preferred by petitioner, which is Ann.4, no such grievance was raised about non-availability of inquiry report which has caused prejudice to him and merely because copy of inquiry report was not supplied that itself will not be sufficient to hold the order to be bad unless it is being pleaded and prima facie proved that non- availability of inquiry report has caused prejudice to delinquent. Even in the instant case, despite inquiry being initiated under Rule 16, a minor penalty of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect has been inflicted upon delinquent- petitioner which has further been examined in detail by the appellate authority. This court does not find any error in the order impugned which has caused prejudice to petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA2491CW1999 11-4.doc