1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2605/1998 Dayal Dewani Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 25.03.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr D.K. Parihar, for the petitioner. Mr V.K. Mathur, for the respondents. ... As a consequent to proceedings conducted against him as per Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (herein after to be referred to as, 'the Rules of 1958'), the petitioner by an order dated 8.3.1997 suffered a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. The order aforesaid came to be affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.12.1997, hence, to challenge these orders this petition for writ is preferred. The petitioner while holding the post of Lower Division Clerk under the Deputy Commissioner (Admn.), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur was served with a memorandum dated 10.6.1996 as per provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 and was charged for making an effort to cause loss to the State Government by not charing tax on 16 tonnes of stone slabs those were transported in Truck No.RJ-19 G 5413. As per details given the petitioner on 29.3.1996 permitted Truck No.RJ-19 2 G5413 to pass through without making payment of required sales-tax that is of Rs.480/-, however, on checking at Keru check-post at 3.05 pm a ante time i.e. 2.55 pm receipt of Rs.480/- was issued by the petitioner. The petitioner by submitting representation denied the allegation with a specific averment that the required tax was charged by him and as such neither any effort was made to cause loss to the Government nor any loss was actually caused to the State Government. The disciplinary authority after considering explanation submitted by the petitioner reached at the conclusion that at the first instance tax was not charged by the petitioner, however, on knowing about the fact that the vehicle was checked at Keru check-post at 3.05 pm, he issued an ante time receipt and that was quite cleverly handed over to the truck driver and in this manner the petitioner made an effort to cause loss to the government. On basis of the finding as above, the penalty impugned was inflicted upon the petitioner. By way of filing an appeal the petitioner challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority with a specific assertion that no evidence was available with the disciplinary authority to presume that the receipt was issued ante time. However, the appellate authority rejected the appeal by the order dated 20.12.1997. While challenging the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority the main contention of learned counsel for the 3 petitioner is that the finding given by the disciplinary authority is based on surmises and conjectures and as a matter of fact no material was available with him to draw an inference that the petitioner issued an ante time receipt. On examination of record it appears that the disciplinary authority drew inference regarding issuance of an ante time receipt by the petitioner on the count that driver of the truck, which was carrying stone slabs, at first instance failed to produce the receipt. However, it is not in dispute that a receipt was produced by the Driver showing payment of tax in a tune of Rs.480 to carry 6 tonnes of stone slabs. It was open for the disciplinary authority to draw inference on basis of evidence available and to reach at a specific conclusion, however, such inference must be based on cogent reasons. An inference cannot be drawn without having adequate evidence. In the instant matter inference was drawn by the disciplinary authority on basis of failure of the truck driver to produce tax receipt at first instance. On basis of that the disciplinary authority also arrived at the conclusion regarding issuance of an ante time receipt by the petitioner and its successful delivery to the driver of the truck concerned. Such definite finding cannot be given merely on basis of inferences those are not supported by any evidence or reasons. As a matter of fact, no evidence was available with the disciplinary authority to reach at such conclusion, 4 specially in view of the fact that the inquiry itself being under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 was of summary nature. Instant one is a clear case of no evidence. In view of whatever said above, I am inclined to accept this petition for writ, and therefore, the same is allowed. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 8.3.1997 and affirmed by the appellate authority by the order dated 20.12.1997 are hereby quashed. No order as costs. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '