CHUTRA RAM RATHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed against the order dtd. 15/1/2015 (Annex.10) whereby the inquiry as conducted against the petitioner has been remanded back by the Disciplinary Authority to the Inquiry Officer for a denovo inquiry.

(2.) The subject matter in issue is that a charge-sheet dtd. 29/8/2011 was issued to the petitioner who was working as an Accountant with the Regional Transport Office, Jodhpur. Vide the said charge-sheet, two charges were levelled against him. Firstly, that the petitioner was negligent in supervisory work in relation to the revenue collection and deposition of the said collection in the treasury. Because of the lacuna in the supervisory work, there has been a misappropriation of funds causing financial loss to the State Government. The second charge was that the petitioner neither performed his duty regarding the supervision of the receipt books issued to the Treasury Inspector nor did he inform that the revenue collected is not being deposited by the concerned inspector in the treasury. After issuance of the charge-sheet, an Inquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the inquiry and vide his inquiry report dtd. 30/7/2014, held the petitioner to be not guilty. Qua the charges levelled against him, it was held that the other accountants who were allotted the work in question were responsible for the same. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the Inquiry Officer held that the petitioner had performed his duties/allotted work in time and therefore, the charges as levelled against him were held to be not proved.

(3.) The inquiry report was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the conclusion as arrived by the Inquiry Officer, found the same laconic and bereft of the detailed reasons. The Disciplinary Authority further found that the inquiry report is silent as to on which dates the receipt books were issued; when and by whom the said receipt books were received; who were under the obligation to deposit the revenue collected in the treasury; what was the time limit to deposit the said revenue; whether the same was deposited within the required time limit or not; If yes, what was the amount deposited and how much was the amount embezzled; what were the orders governing supervision of the receipt books at the relevant point of time; were the receipt books checked in terms of the governing rules; who were the officers responsible for such checking/inspection; did they perform their duties in terms of the rules/orders; who were the inspectors who were required to deposit the amount and did they deposit the same and finally, who were the officers to whom the petitioner was required to intimate the abovementioned facts; whether the petitioner provided the said information and if not, who was responsible for the same. Noting down the above specific lacunas, the Disciplinary Authority remanded the inquiry back to the Inquiry Officer for a denovo inquiry on the points/issues as detailed out by him. Against the abovementioned order of remand, the present petition has been preferred with the submission that the Disciplinary Authority had no reason whatsoever to remand the matter as the inquiry report was already incorporating the reply to all the questions and issues as pointed out by the Disciplinary Authority in his order dtd. 15/1/2015.