1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Sri Krishna Sharma. Versus The Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2383/2007 ... Date of Order: May 10, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. S.N. Trivedi, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annx.4 dated 6-3-2007. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Carefully perused the order Annx.4 dated 6-3-2007. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Kharta Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., SBCWP No. 890/1996 decided on 17-10-2005, wherein this Court held as under:- “From the facts stated above it is the position admitted that the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the memorandum dated 24-7-1985 was quashed by the reviewing authority with a direction to the respondents to hold on inquiry afresh. The respondents in compliance to the order passed by the reviewing authority served a fresh charge-sheet upon the petitioner under a memorandum dated 2 13.1.1990. The petitioner in pursuance to the charge sheet dated 13-1-1990 submitted an explanation to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority being dissatisfied with the same appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry afresh and found the petitioner guilty for allegation Nos. 1 and 3 in part. This factual position clearly indicates that the disciplinary proceedings conducted in pursuance to memorandum dated 24- 7-1985 were not all at in existence after the order passed by the reviewing authority on 21-7-1988. A fresh inquiry was conducted under the memo dated 13.1.1990. The disciplinary authority, therefore, was required to consider the inquiry report and record of the inquiry submitted to him by the inquiry officer appointed in the inquiry initiated as a consequence to memorandum dated 13-1-1990. It was not at all open for the disciplinary authority to rely upon the inquiry report which was submitted as the consequence to the proceedings initiated under the memorandum dated 24-7-1985. In the present case the finding of misconduct recorded by the disciplinary authority is solely based upon the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer in the inquiry initiated under memorandum dated 24-7-1985. The disciplinary authority as such erred materially, and therefore, the impugned order dated 30-9-1991 deserves to be quashed and set aside.” Petitioner earlier filed SBCWP No. 7211/2006, titled Shri Krishan Sharma Vs. The Uttari Rajasthan Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. & ors., which came to be decided by this Court vide order dated 15-2-2007 and while allowing the writ petition in terms of the order of this Court dated 1-9-2006 passed in Ashutosh Rawal Vs. Uttari Rajasthan Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Ltd., Bikaner & ors., SBCWP No.1022/2006, the impugned order therein Annx.3 dated 14-2-2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, being passed on an illegal inquiry, had 3 been quashed and the respondents therein were directed to reinstate the petitioner therein in service with all consequential benefits. However, it has been held that it will be open for the respondents therein to hold a fresh inquiry, if so considered necessary. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 15-2- 2007, the respondents initiated fresh inquiry after reinstating the petitioner in service. During the inquiry, the petitioner filed an application Annx.8 dated 13-4-2007 requesting the inquiry officer to supply the copies of certain documents mentioned in the application. Vide order Annx.9, the inquiry officer directed the departmental nominee as well as the petitioner-delinquent to appear before him on 23-4-2007 at 2:00 PM in the Office of the Association and made it clear that both the parties are to appear compulsorily and if either of them is absent then at his own risk, the ex parte proceedings will be taken against the absentee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of the copies of the documents mentioned in the application Annx.8, the petitioner cannot defend his case. Whether the documents are in the power and possession of the Department or not, and whether the documents are to be supplied to the petitioner or not, are the questions of facts and law to be decided by the inquiry officer. After passing the order Annx.9 dated 13-4-2007, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has been declined to be supplied with the 4 documents demanded by him vide application Annx.8. In the circumstances, therefore, the question involved in the writ petition is yet to be decided by the inquiry officer. However, it is made clear that if the documents sought by the petitioner to be supplied vide application Annx.8 are necessary for the defence of the petitioner in the inquiry then it is for the inquiry officer to provide an opportunity to the petitioner either to inspect the documents or to supply him the copies thereof whatever the mode is feasible in the facts and circumstances of the case and then to proceed with the inquiry. In this view of the matter, the parties are to appear before the inquiry officer and the inquiry officer is to hear and consider the application Annx.8 filed by the petitioner and if the documents sought are relevant and necessary to prepare the defence by the petitioner in the inquiry then either the inspection or supply of copies of those documents may be allowed to the petitioner. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs