Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Dwarkachand under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the State of Rajasthan and its officers for a writ in the nature of prohibition.

2. The facts of the case are simple and are not in dispute. The applicant was a clerk working in Tehsil Sanchore in 1954. A report was made by the Tehsildar Sanchore, 30th of August, 1934, that he was alleged to have accepted illegal gratification from Kaluram Khatri of Sanschore. In that connection, the applicant had been arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Anti-Corruption Branch) though later he was released on bail. On receipt of this report, the applicant was suspended by the Collector, Jalore on the 31st of August, 1954. It appears that thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Ami-Corruption Branch) asked for sanction of the Collector to prosecute the applicant. The Collector held a departmental enquiry immediately after the report of the Tehsildar reached him. This was in accordance with Circular No. F. 1(6)18/Home-I/53, dated the 24th of June, 1953. According to this circular, a departmental enquiry was to be first held as expeditiously as possible. After such enquiry, only such cases were to be put in court in which there was reasonable chance of conviction. This was ordered in order to give the head of the department a chance to take whatever action he deemed proper on the basis of the departmental enquiry even it the case did not result in conviction on some technical ground or the other. It seems that in view of this circular, the Collector made a departmental enquiry and came to the conclusion on the 19th of July, 1955, that no case had been made out against the applicant. The Collector, therefore, reinstated the applicant and refused to sanction prosecution. This was in accordance with the circular of 1953 mentioned above. It seems, however, that thereafter the matter was taken up by the Anti-Corruption Officer, Jaipur and the Collector was asked for various reasons, into which we need not go, to re-open the matter and hold a fresh departmental enquiry. Thereupon, the Collector framed a charge against the applicant on the 6th of July, 1956, under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 195), and asked the applicant to give his explanation and to cross-examine witnesses and to produce defence. The present application was made by the applicant after this charge was served on him and his contention is that a fresh departmental enquiry under Rule 16 cannot be held against him when a similar enquiry was already held by the Collector, Jalore previously, resulting in his exoneration. He, therefore, prays that the State, the Collector of Jalore and the Anti-Corruption Officer be prohibited from holding a fresh departmental enquiry.

3. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State. The facts, as we have said before, are not in dispute and have been narrated above. The contention on behalf of the State is that the then Collector, who held the departmental enquiry against the applicant, made certain irregularities inasmuch as he did not follow the procedure prescribed by rule 16 and did not examine certain witnesses. Therefore, it was open to the higher authorities (in this case the Government) to order a fresh departmental enquiry even after the exoneration of the applicant and his being reinstated. It is urged that a public servant holds office during the pleasure of the Governor and not during good behaviour and so long as the State observes the restrictions under Art. 311 of the Constitution, there is nothing to preclude it from ordering a fresh enquiry into the conduct of its servants when the previous enquiry was not full and complete. The question raised in this application is undoubtedly of great importance both to public servants and to the State which employs them and is a matter of first impression, for, we have not been able to find any authority one way or the other on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document