A regular enquiry is mandatory in disciplinary proceedings, and findings from a preliminary enquiry cannot be used without providing the delinquent an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

Order :

1. By way of filing of instant writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 28.06.2005 by which the petitioner has been punished with the penalty of stoppage of four annual grade increments without cumulative effect. The said order has been upheld by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 04.12.2007.

2. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing of this instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge- sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘Rules of 1958’) was served upon the petitioner with the charge that he received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as bribe from the complainant for setting up the matter by submitting final report. Counsel submits that the petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet but without holding a regular enquiry as per the provisions contained under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, straightaway punishment order has been passed against the petitioner on the basis of preliminary enquiry. Counsel submits that the petitioner could not get an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and put his defence to these witnesses, hence, under these circumstances, the respondents have violated the mandatory provisions contained under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the order impugned passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are not legally sustainable in the eye of law and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2013 SC 1513 and Satyendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2024) 8 Supreme Court Cases 642. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner but he is not in a position to controvert the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that the charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon the petitioner and the petitioner has been held guilty on the basis of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the respondents. This fact is not in dispute that regular enquiry under Rule 17 was not conducted by the respondents which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala (supra), has dealt with the identical issue and situation and has held that the evidence recorded in the preliminary enquiry cannot be used against the delinquent unless opportunity of cross- examination is given to the delinquent. It has also been held by the Apex Court that enquiry may be useful to take a prima facie view but a delinquent can be held guilty on the basis of the same, for holding a delinquent guilty for any charge, a regular enquiry is required to be conducted after affording due opportunity to the delinquent to cross-examine the witnesses.

8. Herein, the instant case, the petitioner has been held guilty on the basis of the enquiry report without granting any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. In view of above, the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be and are hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for passing appropriate orders after holding proper enquiry as per the Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 and pass fresh orders, strictly in accordance with law within a period three months from the date of receipt of ce