1. - The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.6.1993 passed by the Superintendent of Police (Railway) Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the order dated 16.3.1994 of the Appellate Authority - Deputy Inspector General of Police (Railway) Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid dismissal order has been rejected.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner's services were initially terminated on 9.9.1985 on the ground that a criminal trial under Section 342, 366, 376/34 Indian Penal Code is pending against him. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Service Tribunal and the Service Tribunal vide its order dated 3.12.1987 set aside the termination order on the ground that the order has been passed without conclusion of the trial and without holding any departmental enquiry. On 25.6.1988, the petitioner was suspended in contemplation of enquiry for the same charges, which were tried by the criminal court i.e. Sessions Judge, Pali, wherein he was acquitted vide order dated 9.9.1986. During criminal trial as well as departmental enquiry, statements of prosecutirx - Smt. Daariya and her companion (Mausi) - Smt. Tara were examined and both have not supported neither the version of the prosecution nor of the department. The enquiry officer vide its report dated 15.12.1990 concluded that he is unable to say whether rape has been committed or not, however, he further held the charge partially proved, without specifying which part has been proved.

3. It is stated in the writ petition that neither the copy of the enquiry report dated 15.12.1990 not the notice of disagreement was given, by the disciplinary authority, who had disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and passed the order of dismissal vide order dated 9.6.1993. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order and the appellate authority vide its order dated 26.5.1992 set aside the order dated 31.12.1990 and remanded the matter to the respondent No.3 - The Superintendent of Police (Railway) Rajasthan, Ajmer for following the procedure as laid down in Rule 16(10) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as "the CCA Rules") as interpreted by the Rajasthan High Court and Supreme Court for giving the copy of the enquiry report and in case of disagreement, notice of disagreement be given. Thereafter, the petitioner be allowed to submit his representation and his objection be considered. The further case of the petitioner is that without complying with the aforesaid directions, the respondents have simply asked by the letters to the petitioner to obtain photocopy/certified copy of the available record and submit his reply, but neither the copy of the enquiry report nor notice for disagreement was given. Again the dismissal order was passed on 9.6.1993. Against order dated 9.6.1993 the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also rejected on 6.3.1994.

4. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that opportunity was granted to the petitioner, but he had not availed the same. The respondents are not able to point out any date of dispatch of copy of the enquiry report or notice of disagreement to the petitioner.

5. The submission of counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nitin Jain is that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trial as the prosecution utterly failed to prove the charge, therefore, in view of judgment of the Supreme Court (1) G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Ors.reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 , the departmental enquiry was not desirable and dismissal order is not sustainable on the same set of facts and charge. Even otherwise, charge of rape and other charges is not proved from record of enquiry. Since the charge was partly proved, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to give him copy of the enquiry repor