ORDER :

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceeding that has been initiated against him by way of charge-sheet dated 12.06.2013 ( Annexure-1).

2. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be apposite to be abreast of the facts of case to the extent necessary.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer on 01.03.1983 and was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer on 12.03.1999.

4. During his service as an Assistant Engineer, the petitioner was posted for a brief stint at Sankal Khera Pariyojna, Chittorgarh, where he joined on 31.08.2006 and was transferred on 24.02.2007.

5. During his posting at Sankal Khera, a Dam which was being constructed was at its final / finishing stage, where the petitioner had allegedly verified a payment of Rs. 6,18,593/- in relation to 14th running bill which was made to the Contractor.

6. In the year 2007 itself, immediately after the Dam was complete, but before it was inaugurated in July, 2008, a seepage was noticed. A committee was later constituted to enquire into the reasons and lapses which had caused the seepage.

7. Said Committee, which was constituted on 10.03.2011, comprising of one Superintending Engineer and two Executive Engineer gave its report after site inspection on 15.03.2011 indicating that the Dam in question was not constructed as per the approved drawing and design.

8. A notice dated 25.04.2011 came to be issued to the petitioner asking him to explain as to why disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCA Rules’) be not initiated against him.

9. The petitioner filed a reply dated 07.06.2011 and stated that during his tenure neither any work was done nor was any payment made to the firm.

10. The comments from the officers of the Department were sought, but the State Government was not satisfied with the petitioner’s reply and the comments, resultantly a disciplinary enquiry came to be instituted against the petitioner by way of the charge-sheet dated 12.06.2013.

11. After issuance of the charge-sheet, nothing substantial was done and it was only on 07.04.2016, an inquiry officer came to be appointed. On appointment of the inquiry officer, the petitioner rushed to this Court assailing the disciplinary inquiry on the ground of delay so also on the ground of it being arbitrary and without application of mind.

12. On 10.08.2016, an interim order in petitioner’s favour was passed and the inquiry officer was restrained from proceeding in furtherance of the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner.

13. A reply to the writ petition and an application seeking vacation of interim order under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India too has been filed by the respondent – State.

14. The matter came up for consideration of the Court on various occasions. However, proceedings drawn by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 07.02.2017 needs a special mention, in which the Court made the following observations:-

“Learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to satisfy this Court as to why the Enquiry Officer was not appointed for last 03 years in spite of the charges having been framed on 12.06.2013 and also as to why 03 Preliminary Enquiries were conducted during this period before the Enquiry Officer was appointed. In case, these reports have come at the instance of the department itself, then where was the necessity to appoint an Enquiry Officer when those reports have come in favour of the petitioner.

Put up on 01.03.2017, as prayed.

Interim order to continue till then.”

15. Today, the matter has come up for consideration of the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, but Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on petitioner’s behalf prayed that since the matter is old and the petitioner has since superannuated (in the year 2018), the writ petition itself be heard finally, as the argume