1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1065/2007 The State of Raj. & ors. V/s Dr.Jagdish Singh Rajpurohit 24.4.2009 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Deepak Verma Hon'ble Mr.Justice Prakash Tatia Mr.R.L.Jangid, Addl.Advocate General for the appellants. Mr.J.P.Joshi )-for the respondent. Mr.Khet Singh ) State and its functionaries feeling aggrieved by order dated 24.8.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in respondent's W.P.No.6216/03 are in appeal on variety of grounds. Thumb nail sketch of facts of the case is as under: Respondent was issued charge sheet. Pursuant thereof, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “the Rules”). The Enquiry Officer submitted report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the respondent from all the three charges, which were levelled against him. However, the Disciplinary Authority was not in agreement with the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer. He, therefore, sent notice to respondent alongwith his own order as to why he should not be removed from service, as a disciplinary measure. Respondent submitted his reply. 2 The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the explanation submitted by respondent, remanded the case to the Enquiry Officer for de-novo enquiry on the ground that appellants had failed to get the statements of some of the material witnesses recorded in the final enquiry. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent was constrained to file a petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India before learned Single Judge challenging the order of Disciplinary Authority, whereby matter was remanded to Enquiry Officer. Learned Single Judge has considered the relevant sub-rule (9) of Rule 16 of the Rules and thereafter, came to the conclusion that only on the ground that some of the witnesses, who were examined in the preliminary enquiry, were not examined by the appellants at the time of final enquiry, would not amounted to laconic. Learned Single Judge also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in 2005 (6) RDD 2195 (Raj.)_ Dr.O.P.Garg V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. It is no doubt true that allegations levelled against the respondent were serious, but only on account of lacks of appellants, de-novo enquiry could not have been ordered. It was for the appellants to have examined all the witnesses, who were examined during preliminary enquiry,. If they have failed to do so, respondent cannot be made to suffer. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the criminal case respondent has already been 3 acquitted and the complainant has also not supported the case of appellants. That being so, we find that there is no merit and substance in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (Prakash Tatia)J. (Deepak Verma)CJ Parmar