The unauthorized appointment of the departmental representative can vitiate disciplinary proceedings, justifying the order for de-novo inquiry under Rule 16(9) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.07.2020, whereby the respondent No.2 - the District Collector (Land Records), Sirohi has ordered to conduct de-novo inquiry against the petitioner.

2. Shorn of unwarranted details, the facts appertain are that a disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by way of memorandum of charges dated 30.10.2017 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”).

3. After completion of the disciplinary inquiry, the Inquiry Officer gave his report dated 16.03.2018, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5455/2018).

4. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court examined the matter in detail and found that the petitioner was not granted proper opportunity of hearing and mandate of Rules 16(6) and 16(10) of the Rules of 1958 have not been followed and thus quashed and set aside the inquiry report and the order dated 28.03.2018, passed by the respondent No.2 and remanded the matter back to the Inquiry Officer (respondent No.2).

5. In furtherance of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition aforesaid, the matter was taken up by the respondent No.2 afresh and by order dated 15.05.2018, the Inquiry Officer namely the Sub-Divisional Officer, Reodar was asked to take up the proceedings afresh and re-conduct the inquiry against the petitioner, as directed by this Court.

6. During the pendency of the inquiry, the petitioner moved an application before the respondent No.2 – the disciplinary authority and requested to change the Inquiry Officer, whereupon by way of order dated 20.12.2018, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pindwara was appointed an Inquiry Officer.

7. Thereafter inquiry proceedings were taken up, in which the Tehsildar, Pindwara represented the State’s case as iSjksdkj(departmental representative).

8. The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report dated 15.06.2020 and concluded that no charge is proved against the petitioner.

9. When the inquiry report dated 15.06.2020 was placed for consideration of the disciplinary authority, (the respondent No.2) he ordered for de-novo inquiry, by an order dated 28.07.2020 addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pindwara

10. Impugning said order dated 28.07.2020, Mr. R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the disciplinary authority has seriously erred in directing a fresh inquiry without recording any reason.

11. Learned counsel argued that if the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, he was required to record reasons for the same.

12. Reading the order impugned dated 28.07.2020, passed by the District Collector (Land Records), Sirohi (respondent No.2), Mr. Choudhary argued that the only reason given in the order is that the Tehsildar, Land Record in the Office of the Collector, Sirohi was appointed as departmental representative and his view point is not included in the inquiry report. He added that the departmental representative had filed his reply and made his submissions and, therefore, the reasons given in the order under consideration are factually incorrect and the order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

13. Learned counsel further submitted that vide communication dated 28.07.2020 addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pindwara, the respondent No.2 - the District Collector (Land Records), Sirohi has not only ordered for de-novo inquiry against the petitioner; but has also appointed new departmental representative (Tehsildar – Sirohi) for the purpose of the ensuing inquiry.

14. Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the order dated 28.07.2020 though not happily worded, is just and proper in the factual backdrop.

15. Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards the order dated 17.01.2018, whereby the Sub-