1 S.B. WRIT PETITION NO.1005/2006 Kishan Lal Meghwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 20th May, 2008 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. P.S. Bhati, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Bhati, for the respondent-State. **** By an order dated 31.10.1987 passed by the District Education Officer (Women), Udaipur the petitioner was placed under suspension as he remained behind the bars for a term of more than 48 hours being said to be involved in a criminal case punishable for the offences under Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC. The petitioner at the relevant time was holding the post of Laboratory Assistant at Government Secondary School, Lasani. By a judgment dated 12.4.2002 the petitioner was acquitted from the charges referred above, hence, he claimed for revocation of suspension and also for payment of the subsistence allowance, but of no consequence. By this petition for writ a direction is sought to restore the services of the petitioner and also for making payment of subsistence allowance. In reply to the writ petition the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner as a consequent to disciplinary action stood dismissed from service w.e.f. 17.2.1988, thus, is not entitled for any relief. This 2 Court by the order dated 28.3.2008 directed the respondents to keep the entire record of the disciplinary proceedings said to be conducted against the petitioner available. The record aforesaid was produced before the Court and on examination of that it was found that no order terminating the petitioner was available. As a matter of fact there is nothing regarding disciplinary proceedings available on record except a charge-sheet dated 4.11.1987. It is also pertinent to note that a fact finding was also conducted to ascertain disciplinary action said to be taken against the petitioner by Sh. Dharmi Chand Nagori, District Education Officer, and he submitted his report on 28.2.2005. Sh. Nagori also reached at the conclusion that no order terminating the petitioner from service was available on record. The factual background as narrated above leaves the Court with no option but to presume that the petitioner was never terminated from service as said by the respondents. In view of it, this petition for writ deserves acceptance, and therefore, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and also to make payment of the due subsistence allowance. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. Jgoyal