CW 1062/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.1062/2006 Chetan Das Keswani Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 04/02/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Virendra Lodha, for petitioner. Mr. NA Naqvi, Addl.Adv. General ) Mr. Pradip Kalwania ) Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondents Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing inquiry report communicated vide letter dt.01/02/06 (Ann.2) on the premise that while holding him guilty, inquiry officer despite being only fact finding officer appointed by disciplinary authority, has recommended to impose major penalty upon petitioner U/r 14 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“CCA Rules”). Counsel for petitioner submits that inquiry officer being only fact finding officer appointed to inquire into material and submit his factual report to the disciplinary authority for final decision in terms of R.16(10) of CCA Rules but what has been further observed by inquiry officer in his report (Ann.2) while recording the finding of guilt, for inflicting major penalty, is beyond his authority and certainly would cause prejudice to him in course CW 1062/06 //2// of disciplinary authority taking its final decision based on record of inquiry. It has also brought to the notice of this Court that pendente writ petition, the petitioner attained age of superannuation on 30/11/08. In the reply filed by respondents, it has been inter-alia averred in para 14, extract whereof reads ad infra: “As far the recommendation of the inquiry officer regarding punishment is concerned, that is not relevant because it is for the disciplinary authority to take decision regarding the punishment after considering the representations/ submissions made by the petitioner.” Government Counsel submits that inquiry officer submitted his report to disciplinary authority and what has been further observed in regard to proposed punishment is not relevant since disciplinary authority as appointing authority will take its independent decision on inquiry report after consideration, and no prejudice in any manner is going to cause to him. Inquiry officer being fact finding officer was not supposed and within its competent to propose penalty as provided U/r 14 of CCA Rules and certainly it was for the disciplinary authority to examine the record of CW 1062/06 //3// inquiry and take its independence decision in terms of R.16(9) & (10) of CCA Rules. In view of specific plea raised by respondents in their reply (extract whereof quoted, supra), writ petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed and the disciplinary authority (respondents) will be free to take its independent decision after taking note of record of inquiry without being influenced by what has been proposed by inquiry officer in his report as regard penalty; and finalise the inquiry in accordance with law. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/1062CW06-4Fb.doc