CW 690/96 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.690/1996 Ram Kishan Versus State & Ors Date of Order ::: 15/10//09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Rinesh Gupta & Mr. Harsh Saini, for petitioner Mr. MF Baig, Dy. Govt. Counsel for respondents Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.07/01/1989 (Ann.13) whereby petitioner was dismissed from service after holding regular inquiry U/r 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“CCA Rules”), and so also orders dt.07/09/1989 (Ann.14) & dt.03/06/1994 (Ann.15) whereby appeal & review petitions preferred by him were rejected by appellate and reviewing authority. As alleged, petitioner while serving as constable, was placed under suspension vide order dt.19/08/85 (Ann.1) for alleged misconduct on the premise of criminal case (FIR-177/85) being registered for offences U/Ss 420, 467, 468 & 471, IPC, at police Station Bajaj Nagar (Jaipur) in which he was finally acquitted by a competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dt.25/04/06. However, a regular charge sheet CW 690/96 //2// (Ann.2) U/r 16 of CCA Rules was served upon petitioner. It is relevant to mention that there was one of charges against him about criminal case being instituted against petitioner for offences U/Ss 420, 467, 468 & 471, IPC; and that apart, there were other charges imputed of deceitfully accepting money from one Shyamlal for providing him employment, for which he fabricated a forged appointment order dt.20/03/84 pursuant to which Shyamlal was allowed to join duty on 05/04/84. Petitioner submitted application (Ann.3) dt.16/09/85 denying all the charges imputed against him while at the same time, requested to inspect the record which was made to be basis for serving him charge sheet impugned. It has come on record placed by respondents along with reply to writ petition that order was passed by the authority to inspect the record as desired in his application about forged appointment letter prepared by petitioner on 20/03/84; and on his request made, Vijay Singh ASI was also allowed as his defence nominee vide order dt.23/06/86 (Ann.R/5). It has also come on record that CW 690/96 //3// statements of departmental witnesses recorded on 10/01/86 were also recorded on 16/07/86 in his presence and his defence nominee and thus ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to submit his defence, as well. Finally, after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner, inquiry officer held him guilty of all the charges. As regards charges No.1 to 4, they were found to be proved; while as regards charge No.5, it was only to the effect that there was criminal case instituted against him. Copy of inquiry report has been placed on record as Ann.R/6. After examination of record of inquiry submitted alongwith report of inquiry U/r 16 (8) of CCA Rules, the disciplinary authority agreed to the finding recorded by inquiry officer while holding him guilty and looking to the gravity of charge found proved, inflicted penalty of dismissal from service vide order dt.07/01/89 – against which appeal was preferred raising all objections which were considered by appellate authority rejecting his appeal by a reasoned order dt. 07/09/89 and further review petition preferred by him was also rejected by reviewing authority vide order dt.03/06/94 (Ann.15). CW 690/96 //4// First & foremost contention advanced by Counsel for petitioner is that before passing the order inflicting penalty of dismissal from service, copy of inquiry report and show cause notice was not served upon him; in such circumstances, order impugned is in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel further submits that petitioner had submitted application before inquiry officer for statements recorded on 10/01/86 and in which it was stated that the date has been fixed in criminal case also, which he had to attend so inquiry be deferred; yet statements were recorded behind his back and further contended that the orders of appellate/reviewing authority are not speaking orders and R.30(2) of CCA Rules has not been complied with while rejecting his appeal/ review, which caused prejudice to him. Contention of petitioner is without substance for the reason that the judgment placed reliance upon by Counsel in Union of India Vs. Ramzan Khan (AIR 1991 SC 471) was decided on 20/11/90 in which it was held that principles laid down by Apex Court being prospective would not be applicable to the cases decided prior thereto; in instant case, CW 690/96 //5// order inflicting penalty of dismissal from service against petitioner was passed on 07/01/89 which was of prior to the decision of Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Ramzan Khan (supra); as such, there was no requirement to supply copy of inquiry report before inflicting penalty impugned. Further it has come on record that those statements recorded on 10/01/86 allegedly in absence of petitioner were again recorded on 16/07/86 in his presence and so also in presence of his defence nominee, as taken note of by appellate authority in its order dt.07/09/89 (Ann.14) and that being so, no prejudice can be said to have caused to him. As regards contention that initially petitioner applied for appointing one Sarafat Ali as his defence nominee who was not permitted to participate in the inquiry, suffice it to say that he later on submitted his application dt.19/06/86 (Ann.R.4) for appointing one Vijay Singh ASI as his defence nominee which was allowed vide order dt. 23/06/86 (Ann.R/5). Vijay Singh indisputably participated as his defence nominee in course of inquiry. CW 690/96 //6// Last contention raised is that appellate authority has failed to appreciate the reco rd of inquiry while considering appeal/review preferred by petitioner. Such a contention is also without substance for the reason that order dt. 07/09/89 (Ann.14) & dt.03/06/94 (Ann.15) clearly depicts that all of his submissions while assailing inquiry proceedings and final order of penalty impugned were considered elaborately and after examining the record of inquiry rejected the appeal/review assigning reasons after due compliance of R.30 of CCA Rules. Consequently, writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.6/ 690CW96Oct15-DsDE.doc