1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2208/1995 Rajamiyan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 27.10.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. M.S. Singvhi, for the petitioner/s. Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the respondents. ... This petition for writ is preferred to assail validity of the order dated 27.1.1995 (Annexure-16) passed by the disciplinary authority imposing a penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. In brief facts of the case are that a memorandum dated 30.11.1987 was served upon the petitioner proposing an inquiry as per provisions of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Rules of 1958'). On the same day a direction was also given by the respondents to hold a joint inquiry against the petitioner and certain other co-delinquent employees as per Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner regular inquiry was instituted and the inquiry officer was appointed. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 27.3.1993 acquitting the petitioner as well as other co-delinquent employees viz. B.L. Meena and 2 D.S. Rathore from all the charges. The disciplinary authority after considering record of inquiry and the inquiry report found the inquiry proceedings laconic, and therefore, remanded the matter to the inquiry officer for further inquiry as prescribed under sub-rule 9 of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. After getting the matter remanded fresh consideration was made by the inquiry officer without recording any fresh evidence and he submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 18.12.1993. The inquiry officer this time held the petitioner guilty for allegation No.3 and partially guilty for allegations No.1 and 2. Pertinent to note here that whatever finding given under the inquiry report dated 18.12.1993 was based on the material which was already available as no additional or further inquiry was made by the inquiry officer after getting the matter remanded. The disciplinary authority on basis of the findings given by the inquiry officer passed an order dated 27.1.1995 imposing a penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. To challenge the order aforesaid this petition for writ is preferred. The contention advanced to assail validity of the order dated 27.1.1995 is that as per Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958, the disciplinary authority after considering the report of inquiring authority remanded the case for further inquiry, but without holding any further inquiry, the inquiry officer on basis of the same material, changed his opinion 3 and held the petitioner guilty for the allegation No.3 and also for allegation No. 1, 2 and 4 in part. It is stated that on the same material no different opinion could have been formed by the inquiry officer regarding the allegations levelled against the petitioner. A short reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents accepting the position that at the first instance the inquiry officer exonerated the petitioner but the disciplinary authority for the reasons recorded in writing chose to remand the matter for further inquiry and the inquiry officer considered entire record of the inquiry as per the Rules and gave specific findings relating to the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the co-delinquent employees. Heard counsel for the parties and also examined the record. It is not in dispute that at the first instance the inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 27.3.1993 by exonerating all the delinquent employees including the petitioner from the charges of misconduct. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of the inquiring authority reached at the conclusion that the inquiry was laconic, and therefore, while exercising powers under sub- rule (9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 remanded the case for further inquiry. From perusal of the inquiry report dated 18.12.1993 it reveals 4 that the delinquent employees as well as the presenting officer refused to tender any further evidence in the matter, and therefore, the inquiry officer just by considering whatever material already available on record submitted his report to the disciplinary authority and this time he found the delinquent employees guilty for the allegations of misconduct. Under sub-rule (9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 the disciplinary authority is having power to remand a case either for further inquiry or for de novo inquiry but not to ask for a fresh inquiry report just by re appreciation of evidence already available. In such circumstances, if the disciplinary authority is not in agreement with the findings given by the inquiry officer then he may record the reasons for disagreement and by seeking comments thereon from the delinquent employee he may pass an appropriate order. In the present case the disciplinary authority in quite unambiguous terms reached at the conclusion that the inquiry was laconic and therefore he remanded the matter for further inquiry to the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer, therefore, should have inquired the matter further and on basis of the further inquiry and the material made available to him as a consequent to further inquiry should have given a fresh inquiry report. Instead of doing so the inquiry officer has just re-appreciated the evidence that was earlier available and on the basis of which a different opinion was formed by him, which is not at all 5 permissible in any quasi judicial inquiry. The disciplinary authority too failed to appreciate that in pursuant to the order Annexure-10 dated 10.8.1993 no further inquiry was made by the inquiry officer. As a matter of fact, in the present case the inquiry officer has changed his opinion as per wishes of the disciplinary authority who held the inquiry conducted earlier laconic. In such circumstances, the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer on 18.12.1993 is not at all valid, and therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority passed upon the findings given under an invalid inquiry report are illegal. The order of the disciplinary authority, therefore, is bad and as such same deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 27.1.1995 passed by the disciplinary authority to the extent it relates to the petitioner is quashed. No order as to costs. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '