Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of the Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled against him vide charge sheet dt. 13.2.14 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, in exercise of the power conferred under Sec. 38 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act") and Rule 22(2) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (for short "the Rules"). The petitioner has also questioned legality of the charge sheet issued as aforesaid and the order dt. 15.9.14 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, appointing the Additional Chief Executive Officer as an Enquiry Officer to inquire into the charges of mis -conduct levelled against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner having come to know about the pattas being issued to the ineligible persons, the same were cancelled by a resolution adopted by the Gram Panchayat and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has caused any wrongful loss to the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel submitted that relying upon the staff of Gram Panchayat and the officials of the Government, if any unintentional error is committed by the petitioner, the same does not fall within the definition of 'misconduct' requiring action against the petitioner in terms of provisions of Section 38 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has preferred a criminal miscellaneous petition before this Court with the prayer for quashing an FIR registered against him based on identical allegations, wherein a stay order has been passed by this Court in his favour and therefore, there was no justification for the State Government to proceed with the inquiry.
(2.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. Indisputably, in response to the charge sheet, the petitioner filed reply denying the allegations. After completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has already submitted the Enquiry Report recording his findings on the charges of misconduct levelled against the petitioner. As per the mandate of provisions of Rule 22(7) of the Rules, the State Government is under an obligation to consider the finding of the Enquiry Officer and extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Obviously, the appropriate order shall be passed by the State Government after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the question of this Court entertaining the petitioner's challenge to the report submitted after the conclusion of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer, at this stage does not arise. It is well settled that the scope of the investigation in the criminal case and the departmental enquiry into the charges of misconduct committed by an incumbent, is entirely different and thus, merely because, in a criminal miscellaneous petition, this Court has passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner not to take any coercive action against him, the respondents are not precluded from proceeding with the inquiry initiated in conformity with the provisions of Section 38 of the Act read with Rule 22 of the Rules. The charges levelled against the petitioner cannot be considered to be vague and baseless and therefore, the challenge of the petitioner to the charge sheet issued by the competent authority is also devoid of any merit. Moreover, it is open for the petitioner to avail the opportunity of hearing before the State Government in terms of Rule 22(7) of the Rules and question the legality of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on all available grounds. Thus, viewed from any angle, no case for interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out at this stage. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed in limine.;