1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Smt. Prem Purohit. Versus State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5320/2006 ... Date of Order: March 21, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Pushpendra Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Additional Advocate General. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order Annx.11 dated 16-6-2006 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.4 to lodge an FIR regarding the criminal act alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and others, as also to hold an inquiry and place the petitioner under suspension contemplating the inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, “the CCA Rules, 1958” hereinafter). However, the order Annx.11 further goes to state that after holding the inquiry, the services of the petitioner be terminated. 2 The order impugned, to the extent of directing the respondent No.4 to lodge an FIR, holding an inquiry under rule 16 of the CCA Rules 1958 and placing the petitioner under suspension cannot be questioned, but before conclusion of the inquiry, a decision cannot be given by the Authority directing to terminate the services of the petitioner and, therefore, she is aggrieved of the impugned order to the extent of directing the respondent No.3 to terminate her services before conclusion of the inquiry. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my view, though there are very serious charges against the petitioner for obtaining employment by playing fraud and for which the respondents have already decided to hold an inquiry under rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958, but nevertheless before conclusion of the inquiry, the punishment of dismissal directed to be imposed cannot be directed by the respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, the impugned order Annx.11 dated 16-6- 2006 directing the respondent No.4 to terminate the services of the petitioner before conclusion of the inquiry deserves to be quashed. However, it will be open for the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, on conclusion of the inquiry, ultimately to decide, if the charges are proved, as to what punishment is to be imposed, which may go upto dismissal of the service of the petitioner, but that has to be done only after conclusion of the 3 inquiry. In this view of the matter, the impugned order Annx.11 dated 16-6-2006, to the extent of directing the respondent No.4 for dismissal of service of the petitioner before conclusion of the inquiry is quashed. With these modification in the impugned order Annx.11, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs