[2026:RJ-JD:1169]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16942/2017 Vishnu Nath S/o Sh. Mangalji Rawal, By Caste Rawal, Resident Of 101-K Block Sector No. 14, Gordhan Vilas, Udaipur Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Home Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Pratapgarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Kumar Purohit for Mr. Harish Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, GC HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

09/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of show cause notice dated 30.03.2017 (Annex.1) and enquiry report dated 24.03.2017 (Annex.9) whereby the enquiry officer held the charges (Charge Nos.1 to 8) as framed against the petitioner to be proved.

2. Two grounds have been raised in the present petition:

firstly, criminal proceedings had already been initiated against the petitioner for the same charges and hence, the present disciplinary proceedings ought to have been stayed, keeping into consideration the same facts, charges and the same evidences involved in both the proceedings.

Secondly, the Enquiry Officer who submitted the impugned enquiry report was never appointed by the competent authority and hence, he could neither have continued with the enquiry proceedings after the transfer of the earlier Enquiry Officer appointed by name nor could he have submitted any enquiry report.

3. So far as the first ground is concerned, the same has now rendered infructuous as admittedly, criminal proceedings against the petitioner have culminated into an order of conviction. Vide order dated 20.06.2023, the petitioner has been held guilty and has been punished with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.

4. Arguing on the second ground, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the first enquiry officer was appointed by designation but then, on a complaint been filed by the petitioner of he being biased, vide order dated 05.01.2016 (Annex.8), the Additional Superintendent of Police, Udaipur-Shri Thakur Chandrasheel was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, by name. He undertook the enquiry proceedings but before the same could be completed, he stood transferred and hence, in the said event, some other enquiry officer ought to have been appointed by the competent authority. Appointment dated 05.01.2016 was not an appointment by designation but was by name and hence, Enquiry Officer Shri Binja Ram who submitted the enquiry report was not competent to suo moto complete the enquiry proceedings and submit an enquiry report. The enquiry report therefore, being submitted by an incompetent authority, deserves to be quashed.

5. Responding to the above argument, counsel for the respondents submitted that in the present proceedings, the first Enquiry Officer was appointed by designation and even the second and the third Enquiry Officers undertook the enquiry proceedings in continuity, after the transfer of the first Enquiry Officer, without there being any particular order in their name. So far as Thakur Chandrasheel is concerned, he was appointed only on a complaint filed by the petitioner. He having been transferred, the person who joined in his place rightly exercised his jurisdiction in completing the enquiry proceedings.

6. Counsel submits that it was a case of appointment of an Enquiry Officer by designation and hence, the Enquiry Officer Binja Ram, after having joined in place of Thakur Chandrasheel, was definitely entitled to continue with the enquiry proceedings and even submit an enquiry report.

7. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the Apex Court judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. M.B. Patnaik &

Ors.; 1981 (2) SCC 159

8. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.

9. It is an admitted fact that the enquiry proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner way back in the year 2012. Vide order dated 10.10