IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary inquiries and upheld the competence of the CAD Commissioner to conduct the proceedings.

ORDER :

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned charge-sheet dated 24.05.2009 (Annexure-3) issued to the petitioner as also the penalty order dated 07.07.2020 (Annexure-15), whereby, in departmental enquiry conducted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short “CCA Rules”), the Command Area Development Commissioner, Chambal, Kota (for short “CAD Commissioner”) has imposed a penalty of forfeiture of services prior to 18.07.1999.

2. The facts of the case, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, are as follows. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Degree Holder) by the Director, Agriculture Department of the State of Rajasthan. In August of 1989, the petitioner was sent on deputation by the Director, Agriculture Department, State of Rajasthan (i.e. parent department) to Command Area Development, Kota (for short “CAD”). In 1998, the petitioner applied for Post Graduate Course, i.e. Masters of Engineering (Agriculture) as a sponsored candidate of Government of Rajasthan in Irrigation Water Management (for short “IWM”) at College of Technology and Agricultural Engineering, Udaipur (for short “CTAE”). The application of the petitioner, along with two other people, was also forwarded by the Agricultural Department of the State of Rajasthan vide letter dated 18.07.1998 to Dean, CTAE, Udaipur. The said application was also accepted by the Rajasthan Agricultural University vide letter dated 01.09.1998. However, the CAD Commissioner cancelled the nomination of the petitioner to pursue the degree by a vague and non-speaking order dated 02.09.1998 and subsequently vide order dated 04.09.1998, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department. Thereafter, the State Government issued order dated 11.09.1998 according permission to the petitioner for admission in PG course at CTAE, Udaipur and accordingly a letter was issued on 18/19.09.1998 by CTAE, Udaipur admitting the petitioner as a special case as sponsored candidate of the Government. Vide order dated 07.10.1998, the petitioner was again sent on deputation by the Agriculture Department to CAD, Kota and in compliance thereof, the petitioner gave his joining at CAD, Kota on 13.10.1998 and requested for relieving him on account of his academic requirement. When no action was taken, the petitioner filed another representation on 20.10.1998 and thereafter vide order dated 02.11.1998, the petitioner was allowed to join. However, to the utter shock of the petitioner, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCS Rules on 24.05.1999, which resulted in passing of the impugned order of punishment dated 07.07.2000.

3. Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions.

3.1. The first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the CAD Commissioner is neither the disciplinary authority nor appointing authority of the petitioner to initiate proceedings under the CCA Rules and therefore the entire proceedings, i.e., issuance of charge-sheet, conduct of enquiry and penalty order dated 07.07.2000 are without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of the law. It is contended that departmental enquiry against the petitioner could only have been initiated by the Head of Department of the parent department of the petitioner or any authority specifically empowered by the Head of Department with the approval of the State Government as per Rule 15 of CCA Rules. It is contended that the State Government Order dated 25.07.1974 on which reliance is placed by the respondent is a general order only for operational convenience, but the same nowhere states that the power under Rule 15 of CCA Rules have been conferred to CAD Commissioner and no specific order has been passed in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also highlighted that in other instances, the State Government has passed specific order d