DBSAW503/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.503/2010 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4969/2008 The State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Ram Lal Deegwal Date of Order ::: 18.10.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri N.A. Naqvi, Additional Advocate General for appellants Shri Lokesh Sharma, Counsel for respondent #### As per Hon'ble Justice Mohammad Rafiq:- This special appeal is directed against judgment of learned Single Judge dated 18.05.2009 by which de-novo enquiry ordered agasint writ-petitioner-respondent was declared illgal and appellants were directed to act accordingly. Shri N.A. Naqvi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for appellants, has argued that de-novo enquiry was ordered because disciplinary authority did not agree with findings recorded by enquiry officer and that Rule 16(9) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 confers upon him power to direct further/de-novo DBSAW503/2010 // 2 // enquiry in case it has reason to believe that enquiry already conducted has been laconic in some respect or the other. Learned counsel argued that disciplinary authority considered report of enquiry officer and found that enquiry officer should have given more and further opportunity to departmental representative to produce evidence so as to prove charges. De-novo enquiry was necessary because charges against respondent were of grave nature. Finding, recorded by enquiry officer to the effect that there was no evidence to prove charges, could not be accepted because sufficient opportunity was not given to departmental representative to produce witnesses. Learned counsel for respondent opposed special appeal and supported impugned judgment of learned Single Judge. It is argued by him that enquiry officer, in present matter, has submitted a report exonerating respondent by consecutive three reports but on earlier three occasions also matter was remanded to him by disciplinary authority for de-novo enquiry and this was fourth time when same course was adopted by him. It is submitted that petitioner, during pendency of writ petition, has retired and has been paid all retiral benefits including regular pension. No part of his retiral benefits DBSAW503/2010 // 3 // has been withheld despite pendency of present appeal. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing impugned judgment, we are of the view that learned Single Judge was perferectly justified in declaring action of appellants directing de-novo enquiry against respondent to be illegal because it was not for the first time but already thrice earlier, de-novo enquiry was directed and on all such occasions, enquiry officer submitted enquiry reports holding the charges not proved against respondent. Merely because findings recorded by enquiry officer were not palatable to disciplinary authority, would not justify ordering de-novo enquiry and that by itself cannot be taken a lacunae. If charges are not proved for inability of department to produce evidence, that cannot be considered as a lacunae in enquiry procedure. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Special appeal is therefore dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. (Arun Mishra) J. //Jaiman//