SBCWP No.2341/04. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2341/2004. Ramavatar Sharma Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Date of order : January 28, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Madhav Mitra for the petitioner. Shri O.P. Sharma for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT :- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31/1/2002 by which the differential amount of the salary and subsistence allowance was withheld and he was warned to be careful in future and also the order dated 17/4/2002 by which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. 2) Shri Madhav Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner in his report Ann.1, even then, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned- order withholding all other due amount payable to the SBCWP No.2341/04. 2 petitioner except the amount of subsistence allowance. Though the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service, he was warned to be careful in future. It was argued that the said order of penalty could not be passed because even the complainant herself did not support the allegation in her statement before the enquiry officer wherein she stated that she made the complaint in the state of anger at the petitioner and that now she did not want to prosecute the matter. Learned counsel argued that though the disciplinary authority differed with the view taken by the enquiry officer but no notice of dissent was served upon the petitioner. Appellate authority also ignored all the points raised before him and mechanically dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned-order be quashed and set-aside. 3) This Court, upon hearing the arguments of the parties directed the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to produce the copy of the notice dated 20/10/2001 which was referred to in the order of penalty. Learned counsel for the respondents has today produced for perusal of the court copy of the order dated 20/10/2001. 4) On perusal of the aforesaid order, it appears that this was simply a communication with which copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner. It is thus clear that no notice was SBCWP No.2341/04. 3 served upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority prior to taking dissenting view. When the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner of the charges, the disciplinary authority was not merely required to serve a copy of the enquiry report upon the petitioner but also it was also incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to have given notice of dissent to the petitioner. The appellate authority has also not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned-order dated 31/1/2002 (Ann.2) passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 17/4/2002 (Ann.3) are quashed and set-aside with the liberty to the respondents to serve upon the petitioner notice of dissent and then proceed further. Since the age of retirement of the petitioner is approaching, respondents are directed to conclude the proceedings in the matter within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, subject further to the condition that petitioner shall not insist for unnecessary adjournments. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil