A disciplinary authority cannot order a de-novo enquiry based on vague or general grounds of bias or procedural irregularity; it must record specific, just, and sufficient reasons in writing as required by the applicable service rules.

Order

1. The matter comes upon an application (I.A. No.02/2025) filed on behalf of the for early listing of the matter.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the writ petition is heard on final disposal today itself with the consent of learned counsel for both parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure-7), whereby the respondents initiated de-novo enquiry having considered the enquiry report dated 30.04.2025 and the petitioner also sought a direction to relieve the petitioner to join in Mahatma Gandhi English Medium School.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as a School Lecturer and while working so, a departmental enquiry was initiated in pursuance of registration of FIR No. 102/2022 at Police Station Devgarh, District Rajsamand. The charge in the departmental enquiry was that the petitioner allegedly molested the victim and attempted to rape her and also pressurized the victim and her brother not to disclose about the incident to anyone. Further charge is that by such action, the petitioner tarnished the image of the department and hurt the sentiments of the teachers. Consequent to the issuance of charge-sheet, the enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report holding that the petitioner/delinquent officer is not guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority, having considered the enquiry report, has issued the impugned order ordering for de-novo enquiry.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is a cryptic order suffering from no reasons. It is also his contention that while ordering the de-novo enquiry, the respondent authorities have not considered the evidence on record as well as the findings of the enquiry officer in the report dated 30.04.2025 and while ordering such de-novo enquiry, there were no valid reasons justifying the ordering of de-novo enquiry.

6. It is his also contention that the petitioner was selected to the post of Lecturer to work in the Mahatma Gandhi Government School after participating in the selection process. On account of pendency of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was not able to join at the Mahatma Gandhi Government School as the respondents have not relieved the petitioner. It is also his contention that in spite of a positive report in favour of the petitioner, the respondent authorities wihtout any justification have ordered the de-novo enquiry which is not sustainable and such an act is in violation of the Rajasthan civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1958’), therefore, the present writ petition has been preferred.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order speaks reasons. According to him, the reasons given for de-novo enquiry was that the enquiry officer has not followed the procedure under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and the report submitted by him is a biased report. Such reasons are justifiable reasons for initiating a de-novo enquiry. It is also his submission that the condition of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Mahatma Gandhi Government School clearly stipulates that a person facing departmental enquiry is not supposed to be relieved from the existing post so as to join on the post of Lecturer in the Mahatma Gandhi Government School. Unless the departmental enquiry is concluded either way, the petitioner