1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL WRIT No. 1500 of 1994 POKAR RAM V/S STATE OF RAJ. Mr. MS SINGHVI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RN UPADHYAY, Mr. MA SIDDIQUI, DY.GA, for the respondent Date of Order : 8.9.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This is second round of litigation, seeking direction to call the entire record including answer books and orders dated 27.1.1994 and 1.3.1994, and for quashing these two orders, Annex.7 and 8. It is also prayed that inquiry report be also requisition and be declared illegal. Various other prayers have also been made. The controversy arises in the background that for the purpose of appointment on the post of Forester, the petitioner and the private respondent had undergone necessary training, and thereafter examinations were held, in which in all 11 papers were given. The result of that examination was declared, and from that point, the controversy has arisen, inasmuch as, the petitioner was aggrieved of the result, and therefore, he raised the grievance, whereupon inquiry was got conducted by the department, and vide report dated 9.12.1992, it was inter-alia found, that there had been an interpolation in the answer books in particular subject after examination, and ultimately, the private respondent was declared to have 2 failed, and was debarred for three years from taking up the training. Likewise, an inquiry under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules was also directed to be initiated, and appropriate proceedings under I.P.C. were also directed to be taken. Thereupon the private respondent filed a writ petition before this Court at Jaipur Bench, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7937/1992, which came to be allowed on 15.3.1993, solely on the ground, that opportunity of hearing was not given to the present private respondent, he was also required to be allowed to inspect the material, and then only the order could be passed. Consequently, the writ was allowed, Annex.5 therein was set aside, and it was left open to the department to issue show cause notice, to give an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause, allowing him to inspect the record, and thereafter to make a fresh order. However, it was found, that it will not be necessary to allow the petitioner therein to lead evidence in the case of present nature. Thereafter a fresh inquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 9.12.1993, which has been produced on record by the State respondents, in compliance of the direction given by this Court on 8.11.1994. In this inquiry report, it was found, that the result originally declared does not require any amendment and it was observed that the result was declared after an inordinate delay of about 16 months, which resulted into violation of secrecy, inasmuch as, all answer books had been received in August 1991 itself, however it was directed that henceforth the result should be declared within three months of completion of the examinations. Consequently, the orders, Annex.7 and 8 annexed with 3 the writ petition had been passed, to the effect, that the result as declared on 1.12.1992 should be treated to be effective, whereby the private respondent was declared to have stood first, and was consequently given appointment. It is in this background, that these orders, Annex.7 and 8, and the inquiry report are under challenge. The matter came to be heard by various Benches from time to time, and every Bench felt something fishy, and therefore, various records were called, including question papers and answer books. Not only that, the question papers and answer books were also allowed, rather directed to be shown to both the parties, which obviously shows, that the different Benches did not feel satisfied with the inquiry report dated 9.12.1993. It was not disputed during course of the arguments, and on the face of both the inquiry reports, and which could possibly not be disputed either, that there had been interpolations, which are visible from a naked eye in the answer books. In my view, the interpolations are on very material aspects, having material bearing on the ultimate result. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I have gone through the inquiry report dated 9.12.1993. A total reading of the inquiry report shows, that the inquiry has not been proper and fair, and has also not been complete either, inasmuch as, various aspects having material bearing on the controversy, have either not been gone into, or a very poor homage has been paid to the requirement, by not examining the 4 concerned persons, who were required to be examined. It is not for me to embark upon the question, as to why and how such an approach was undertaken in conducting the inquiry, and submitting the report, which could be described to be, either casual, or superficial, or might be even partisan. However the fact remains, that in the inquiry report dated 9.12.1993 also it has positively been found, that the result was declared after about 16 months of completion of the examination, and receipt of answer books, and this inordinate delay has resulted into violating the secrecy of the result. This does show, that even in view of the Inquiry Authority, the things did not appear to him to be worth giving altogether a clean chit. Be that as it may. I do not mean to be understood, to be either commenting upon, or making any observation either-ways, as to what should have been the conclusion of the inquiry, one way or the other, but all this has been observed, only for the purpose of expressing myself, to the effect, that the inquiry is not satisfactory. In that view of the matter, I am constrained to set aside this inquiry report dated 9.12.1993. Obviously as a necessary consequence, Annex.7 and 8 also go, and are required to be set aside, and accordingly Annex. 7, 8 and the inquiry report dated 9.12.1993 are all quashed and set aside. Then coming to the practical aspect of the matter, that the fact does remain, that the private respondent has been appointed as there was no interim order, and is serving, 5 while quashing Annex.7 and 8, setting aside the inquiry report dated 9.12.1993, and leaving the matter at that only, will simply have the effect of removing the private respondent from the post, without any further direction, which would not be in the interest of justice, after all, the question is, as to whether the private respondent was eligible to be appointed, or the petitioner was eligible to be appointed, as the tie is only between the two candidates, both the persons had undergone the training, and had appeared in the examination. In that view of the matter, the matter is required to be carried to the logical conclusion, and the person, in whose favour the conclusion is ultimately reached, is entitled to be given appointment, from the retrospective date. Obviously for arriving at a logical conclusion, a threadbare inquiry is required to be conducted, and from the perusal of the two inquiry reports, it is clear, that the departmental authorities can no more be relied upon, for being entrusted the inquiry, as that would simply result into further prolonging of the agony, instead of putting it to an end. In that view of the matter, with the consent of the counsels present, it is directed, that the matter be got inquired by the C.B.I. on all relevant aspects of the controversy, by active participation of the petitioner and the private respondent, and also examining all relevant, concerned and connected persons, and examining the record, and to come to a conclusion, as to whether the result as declared on 1.12.1992 is required to be sustained, or the amended result 6 as declared on 9.12.1992 is required to be sustained. Obviously if the C.B.I. comes to the conclusion, that the result declared on 9.12.1992 is required to be sustained, then the petitioner will get appointment on the said post, with effect from the date the private respondent had been appointed, the private respondent in that event will stand removed, and the petitioner will get all actual cash consequential benefits, and in that event, it will be open to the department, to recover those amounts from the private respondent. On the other hand, if the C.B.I. comes to the conclusion, that the result as declared on 1.12.1992 is required to be sustained, then the present petitioner will not be entitled to any relief whatever. It is also clarified, that in the event of C.B.I. coming to the conclusion about the result dated 9.12.1992 being required to sustain, in that event, it will also be open to the C.B.I. to launch prosecution against the delinquents, who may be found guilty by the C.B.I. The C.B.I. should complete the inquiry most expeditiously, as the controversy is already 18 years old. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed as above. The parties shall bear their own costs of this writ petition. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/