VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was initially appointed as Patwari in December 1967 had been issued a charge-sheet purporting to be under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 by the Collector on 8. 5. 1985 vide Annexure-1. As many as 10 allegations of mis- appropria- tion were levelled against the petitioner. Even though it is stated by the petitioner that the complete record was not allowed to be inspected, but this aspect has been denied by the respondents in the written statement. THE Assistant Collector, Veir was appointed as Inquiry Officer. However, vide order dated 17. 2. 1987, copy of which has been attached as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the Inquiry Officer was changed and instead of Assistant Collector, Veir Assistant Collector, Bayana was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who proceeded with the inquiry and had submitted an exparte report. THE petitioner was called for personal hearing vide Annx-4 dated 4. 9. 1988. Vide Annx-6 while passing a very detailed order the District Collector removed the petitioner from service. THE statutory appeal against the order of removal was also rejected vide Annx-7 on 9. 7. 1990 by Shri I. C. Srivastava, Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, so was the revision petition dismissed on 15. 6. 1993 by Annx-8. THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order Annexures 6, 7 and 8.
(2.) IT is stated in the written statement that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of inspecting the documents and, therefore, this argument of the petitioner has no substance. In regard to non-supply of the report of the inquiry aga- inst the petitioner, it has not been stated by the petitioner that he had asked for the report of the inquiry at any time nor it is stated as to how non-supply of the inquiry report has prejudiced him. IT is not the requirement of law at the relevant time to have supplied the report of the inquiry. Even otherwise, no argument has been addressed on this point. The only argument submitted on behalf of the petitioner as averred in para 5 and also in ground C of para 7 is that on appointment of new inquiry officer, Assistant Collector, Bayana, the petitioner was not informed by the inquiry officer of holding the inquiry and, therefore, the petitioner could not be present. Order Annexure-3 reads to the effect that in the meeting of the Revenue Officers held on 17. 1. 1987 it had been decided that the departmental inquiries being held by the Assistant Collector Bayana and Assistant Collector Veir be changed i. e. the inquiries being held by the Assistant Collector Veir shall be held by the Assistant Collector Bayana and similarly the inquiries being conducted by the Assistant Collector Bayana shall be conducted by Assistant Collector Veir. This aspect has not been denied in the written statement. For the reasons to get further clarification in the matter, the respondent was directed to produce the record to show whether after change of inquiry officer any intimation was given to the petitioner by the changed inquiry officer for holding the inquiry on any particular date or any particular place. One Mr. Rajendra Singh, Personal Assistant to S. D. M. , Bharatpur had appeared in person on 4. 9. 1997 which is clear from the order of the court passed on 4. 9. 1997 and it was stated by him that there was no document available on file to show that the new inquiry officer had ever intimated to the petitioner the date of the inquiry. It is also stated by him that the new inquiry officer had proceeded exparte and had submitted a one page report of inquiry against the petitioner. The finding of the in- quiry officer has been attached as Annexure 9 to the writ petition. The report of the inquiry officer is totally non- speaking and cryptic. He has not even mentioned any of the charge, what to talk of evidence produced against the petitioner. The inquiry officer has only written two paras. The first para related to certain dates fixed by the inquiry officer and the second and final para as stated in Annex. 9 reads as under: Varnacular Text By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the inquiry officer had given any detailed report. It was the duty of the inquiry officer to have discussed the allegations, reply submitted to the charge-sheet and the evidence produced by the prosecution against the petitioner, even if it was exparte and further to give conclu- sions on each and every charge with reasons supporting the conclusion which has not admittedly been done by the inquiry officer. There is substance in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that after the change of the inquiry officer, the petitioner could not have possibly known the mind of the Inquiry Officer as to at what place the inquiry officer wanted to hold the inquiry and on what date. It would have been much better and otherwise also required that if an inquiry officer is changed during the course of the inquiry, the new inquiry officer must inform the delinquent official of the fact that because of the reason he had been appointed as new inquiry officer to hold the inquiry against the delinquent official and he should also intimate the date and place of the inquiry to the delinquent official and ensure that no vagueness is left in regard to the continuance of the inquiry proceedings. No such thing has been done in the present case and, therefore, there is no escape but to hold that the petitioner has not been afforded a proper opportunity and proceeding exparte against the petitioner of the by the new inquiry officer without informing the petitioner of the date and place of inquiry after his appointment cannot be held to be legal or justified and is hit by the principles of natural justice. For the above said reasons the impugned orders Annexure 6 and consequent appellate and revisional orders Annexures 7 and 8 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are directed to be quashed.
(3.) HOWEVER, looking into the seriousness of the charges, the respondents shall be at liberty to continue the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner by affording him proper opportunity and associating him in the inquiry if it is so desired, and if ultimately the findings are found to be adverse against the petitioner, the respondents shall also be free to punish the petitioner as per law including the punishment of retirement, if so warranted by the circumstances. For the above said reasons and observations, the writ petition is allowed. The order Annexure 6, 7 and 8 are cuashed. No order as to costs. .;