Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kasa Ram Dangi vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:50852) on 25 November, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:50852]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7894/2015

Kasa Ram Dangi
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State And Ors
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. P.D. Bohra
For Respondent(s)         :     None present



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

25/11/2025

1. None appears for the respondents despite the service being

complete.

2. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order

dated 29.11.2014 (Annexure-14) whereby the disciplinary

authority proceeded on to impose a punishment of removal from

service against the petitioner in terms of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan

Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958

(hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules').

3. The facts are that memorandum of charges was served on

the petitioner on 20.11.2007 and he was called upon to file his

defence qua the said charges. The inquiry officer as appointed at

the first stage retired without initiating the inquiry proceedings

and subsequent inquiry officers continued to be appointed.

Ultimately, it is only in the year 2014 that the fifth inquiry officer

as appointed, when called upon to submit the inquiry report within

a period of 15 days, submitted the same on 20.11.2014. After the

(Uploaded on 30/11/2025 at 07:02:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50852] (2 of 7) [CW-7894/2015]

submission of said inquiry report, personal hearing was provided

to the petitioner by the Managing Director of the Bank on

28.11.2014 and 29.11.2014.

4. On 29.11.2014, the disciplinary authority i.e. the Managing

Director proceeded on to pass the order impugned while imposing

a major penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is

bad as no inquiry report was ever served on the petitioner in

terms of Rule 16(10) of the CCA Rules and no opportunity was

granted to him to file his defence.

6. Heard learned Counsel and perused the record.

7. Rule 16(10) of the CCA Rules provides as under:

"16(10) The disciplinary authority shall forward a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority a copy of the report of the inquiring authority to the Government Servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days."

8. A specific ground regarding the non serving of the inquiry

report has been raised in the present petition and in reply to the

said ground, the fact as averred has not been denied by the

respondents. Rather, reply to para no.13 of the writ petition as

filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 reads as under:-

"That the contents of para 13 of the writ petition are wrong and are denied. It is submitted that the inquiry report has not been made available to the petitioner."

(Uploaded on 30/11/2025 at 07:02:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50852] (3 of 7) [CW-7894/2015]

9. In view of the above reply wherein non supplying of inquiry

report is admitted on behalf of the respondents, the action of the

disciplinary authority is clearly contrary to the provisions of law.

Further, the fact of the inquiry report having not been supplied to

the petitioner in terms of Rule 16(10) of the CCA Rules is evident

even from the observations made by the disciplinary authority in

the order impugned itself. The order takes note of the fact that an

application was filed by the petitioner on 20.11.2014 with a

request for the inquiry report to be supplied to him. The

observation as made by the disciplinary authority in order

impugned reads as under:

"Jh dlkjke Mkaxh dh 27-11-2014 dh lquokbZ is"kh j[kh xbZ rFkk Jh Mkaxh }kjk vius vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa vkSj le; pkgk x;k rFkk lquokbZ is"kh 28-11-2014 dks fuf"pr dh xbZA fnukad 28-11-2014 dh is"kh ij Jh Mkaxh us fyf[kr esa izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj tkap fjiksVZ e; i=koyh [kkrk ds nLrkost pkgs] tks oDr lquokbZ miyC/k djk;s x;sA "

10. A bare perusal of the above observation reflects that on

28.11.2024, a request for inquiry report was made by the

petitioner which was supplied to him on the same date. Rule

16(10) of the CCA Rules specifically provides for a grant of 15

days time to the incumbent for filing of a written representation or

submission. Evidently, the order impugned had been passed on

29.11.2014 i.e. the very next day of the inquiry report been

supplied to the petitioner. Meaning thereby, it is crystal clear that

no time to file written representation or submission against the

inquiry report was granted to the petitioner by the disciplinary

authority. The same is clearly in contravention to Rule 16(10) of

the CCA Rules as as is the settled position of law, each employee

(Uploaded on 30/11/2025 at 07:02:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50852] (4 of 7) [CW-7894/2015]

is entitled to be served with a copy of a report which admittedly

goes against him. In absence of such report, the delinquent

definitely would not be in a position to defend himself effectively.

In Union of India and Others vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan;

(1991) 1 SCC 588, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while laying down

the said ratio, held as under:-

"17. There have been several decisions in different High Courts which, following the Forty- Second Amendment, have taken the view that it is no longer necessary to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to delinquent officers. Even on some occasions this Court has taken that view. Since we have reached a different conclusion the judgments in the different High Courts taking the contrary view must be taken to be no longer laying down good law. We have not been shown any decision of a coordinate or a larger bench of this Court taking this view. Therefore, the conclusion to the contrary reached by any two- Judge bench in this Court will also no longer be taken to be laying down good law, but this shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground.

18. We make it clear that wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of

(Uploaded on 30/11/2025 at 07:02:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50852] (5 of 7) [CW-7894/2015]

the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter."

11. The above view was reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in

another case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and

Others vs. B. Karunakar and Others; (1993) 4 SCC 727

wherein the Court has held:

"57. The findings or recommended punishment by the enquiry officer are likely to affect the mind of the disciplinary authority in his concluding the guilt or penalty to be imposed. The delinquent is, therefore, entitled to meet the reasoning, controvert the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer or is entitled to explain the effect of the evidence recorded. Unless the copy of the report is supplied to him, he would be in dark to know the findings, the reasons in support thereof or nature of the recommendation on penalty. He would point out all the factual or legal errors committed by the enquiry officer. He may also persuade the disciplinary authority that the finding is based on no evidence or the relevant material evidence was not considered or overlooked by the enquiry officer in coming to the conclusions, with a view to persuade the disciplinary authority to disagree with the enquiry officer and to consider his innocence of the charge, or even that the guilt as to the misconduct has not been established on the evidence on records or disabuse the initial impression formed in the minds of the disciplinary authority on consideration of the enquiry report. Even if the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that charge or charges is/are proved, the case may not warrant imposition of any,

(Uploaded on 30/11/2025 at 07:02:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50852] (6 of 7) [CW-7894/2015]

penalty. He may plead mitigating or extenuating circumstances to impose no punishment or a lesser punishment. For this purpose the delinquent needs reasonable opportunity or fair play in action. The supply of the copy of the report is neither an empty formality, nor a ritual, but aims to digress the direction of the disciplinary authority from his derivative conclusions from the report to the palliative path of fair consideration. The denial of the supply of the copy, therefore, causes to the delinquent a grave prejudice and avoidable injustice which cannot be cured or mitigated in appeal or at a challenge under Art. 226 of the Constitution or S. 19 of the Tribunal Act or other relevant provisions. Ex post facto opportunity does not efface the past impression formed by the disciplinary authority against the delinquent, however, professedly to be fair to the delinquent. The lurking suspicion always lingers in the mind of the delinquent that the disciplinary authority was not objective and he was treated unfairly. To alleviate such an impression and to prevent injustice or miscarriage of justice at the threshold, the disciplinary authority should supply the copy of the report, consider objectively the records, the evidence, the report and the explanation offered by the delinquent and make up his mind on proof of the charge or the nature of the penalty. The supply of the copy of the report is thus, a sine qua non for a valid, fair, just and proper procedure to defend the delinquent himself effectively and efficaciously. The denial thereof is offending not only Art. 311(2) but also violates Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution."

(Uploaded on 30/11/2025 at 07:02:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50852] (7 of 7) [CW-7894/2015]

12. In view of the above settled position of law and in view of

the fact that the inquiry report was not served on the petitioner by

the disciplinary authority in terms of Rule 16(10) of the CCA

Rules, order impugned dated 29.11.2014 being bad in the eyes of

law, deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside.

13. The writ petition is hence, allowed.

14. Consequence to follow.

15. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed

afresh in accordance with law, if so desired.

16. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand