JUDGMENT :

Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J.

1. This writ petition is filed for quashing the proceedings pursuant to the letter dated 06.12.2021 as also the charge-sheet dated 24.03.2020 with further prayer to restrain the respondents from initiating any enquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 24.03.2020.

2. The facts in brief, as emerge from the writ petition, are that when the petitioner was posted as Constable in CID (I.B.) in Bharatpur Zone, a criminal case was registered against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Section 384 IPC. After conducting a preliminary enquiry, he was served upon with a charge-sheet dated 24.03.2020 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity "the Rules of 1958") containing two charges. The Enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry, vide report dated 15.11.2021 found both the charges to be proved. Vide letter dated 06.12.2021, the petitioner was supplied with a copy of the enquiry report and was requested to submit his written explanation, if any, within fifteen days.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the charge-sheet dated 24.03.2020 and the FIR lodged against him are based on the same set of facts, the charge-sheet deserves to be quashed. He further submitted that the show cause notice dated 06.12.2021 reflects predetermined mind of the disciplinary authority to punish him as it records his satisfaction with the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry officer. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed. Learned counsel relied upon judgment of this Court dated 05.04.2019 in case of Jagveer Singh v. Union of India & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No. 11459/2009 as also an interim order dated 20.11.2011 of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12658/2021, Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., in support of his submissions.

4. Heard learned counsel and perused the record.

5. The petitioner was served upon with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 vide memorandum dated 24.03.2020. Vide order dated 02.09.2020, Enquiry officer was appointed. A perusal of the record reveals that vide letter dated even, the petitioner was requested to nominate his defence nominee whereupon, vide his letter dated 10.10.2020, the petitioner requested for appointment of Mr. Madan Pal Singh, Sub-Inspector (Retd.) as his defence nominee. Thereafter, he participated in the enquiry till its conclusion by the Enquiry officer without any murmur of protest. Although, in para 10 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the petitioner submitted an application to stay the proceedings as the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet were same as mentioned in the FIR; but, neither a copy of any such application has been placed on record nor, it is mentioned as to when and to whom such application was moved. Even otherwise also, the material on record does not reveal that before participating in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner raised any such objection as to its maintainability; rather, his written arguments dated 03.11.2021 submitted under Rule 16(7) of the Rules of 1958, reveal that after conclusion of the enquiry, his objection was that departmental enquiry was hit by provisions contained in Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India and not as contended herein.

6. Thus, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry initiated vide charge-sheet dated 24.03.2020 without raising any objection as to its maintainability qua pendency of a criminal case based on similar allegations and hence, it is too late for him to assail the charge-sheet after conclusion of the enquiry by the Enquiry officer after issuance of a show cause notice by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all his objections/submissions against the enquiry report including maintainability of the charge-sheet and the disciplinary