DWARKA PRASAD, J.— In this writ petition the question which calls for determination is as to whether a disciplinary enquiry could be initiated against the petitioner after proceedings were dropped against him as a result of an earlier preliminary enquiry. 2. The facts which have given rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner is employed as a Copyist in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. A complaint was filed against him by one Kalyan Das Joshi on December 11, 1967. Another complaint was filed by the same person on January 21, 1968. A third complaint was also filed by Kalyan Das against the petitioner on February 14, 1968. In the last complaint, an allegation was also made amongst others that the petitioner was residing with his father and although he was not residing in a rented house, but he was drawing house rent allowance. The learned District Judge, Jodhpur appointed the Judge, Small Causes Court, Jodhpur to make a preliminary enquiry in respect of two matters namely, as to whether the petitioner prosecuted higher studies without obtaining prior permission and as to whether he was illegally drawing house rent allowance. The Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner to submit his explanation. In his reply dated May 25, 1968 the petitioner Om Prakash admitted that he had prosecuted further studies without obtaining permission. As regards the question of drawing house rent allowance, the petitioner Om Prakash submitted that he was not residing with his father or in the house of his father, because of strained relations between them. In the course of the preliminary enquiry, the complainant did not appear and the Enquiry Officer in his report dated January 7, 1971 held that the petitioner prosecuted further studies and appeared at the B.A. Examination without the permission of the department, as admitted by him. However, as regards the question of illegally drawing house rent allowance, the allegation was not found proved as no evidence was led by the complainant in respect there of. However, as regards the question of illegally drawing house rent allowance, the allegation was not found proved as no evidence was led by the complainant in respect there of. The learned District Judge, by his order dated February 9, 1971, held that the allegations were not proved as the complainant failed to produce any evidence, except that the petitioner Om Prakash himself admitted that he pro-secuted further studies and appeared at B.A. Examination without obtaining permission Acting upon the admission of the petitioner, the learned District Judge imposed the penalty of stoppage of grade increment for a period of 6 months without future effect, upon the petitioner in respect of the charge of prosecuting further studies without obtaining permission for the same. 3. Thereafter the complainant Kalyan Das made further complaints before the High Court which were forwarded to the learned District Judge for examination and report. The learned District Judge made an enquiry and submitted a report dt. March 24, 1973, on the basis of the preliminary enquiry now conducted by him to the effect that the petitioner appears to have resided with his father and that he received house rent allowance from year 1965 to 1969, which claim appeared to be false and unjustified and that the question regarding the receipt of house rent allowance by him from the year 1965 to 1969 required further examination. 4. The record of the proceedings taken on the subsequent complaint filed by Kalyan Das was placed before me by the learned Additional Government Advocate and it appears that this Court in its letter dated August 20, 1973 expressed the view that no enquiry, either under Rule 16 or Rule 17 of the C.C.A. Rules, was held against the petitioner on the earlier occasion and the whole matter was handled in a manner not provided for in the said rules. This Court took the view that the District Judge should hold a proper enquiry in regard to the drawing of the house rent allowance by the petitioner, during the relevant period. The learned District Judge, Jodhpur thereafter served a charge sheet along with a statement of allegations and a memorandum upon the petitioner on September 24, 1973 which was received by him on October 1, 1973. 5. The learned District Judge, Jodhpur thereafter served a charge sheet along with a statement of allegations and a memorandum upon the petitioner on September 24, 1973 which was received by him on October 1, 1973. 5. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the enquiry in respect of the house rent allowance had already taken place and he had been exonerated of the charge and as such a fresh enquiry in respect of the same charge could not be held. The Enquiry Officer, namely, the Additional District Judge, Jodhpur by his order dated March 27, 1974 rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner, holding that as no charg sheet was served upon the petitioner nor any departmental enquiry was conducted either under Rule 16 or Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called "the Rules") and so a departmental enquiry in the matter is not barred. It was also observed by him that the High Court has given a direction under Rule 32 (c) of the C.C.A. Rules to make an enquiry in accordance with the Rules. The order passed by the Enquiry Officer on March 27, 1974, rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner before him, has been challenged in this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner hav-ing been exonerated at the first enquiry in respect of the charge realating to his drawing house rent allowance, a second departmental enquiry in respect of the very same charge cannot be held and reliance was placed on a division bench judgment of this Court in Dwarka Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (1), It was also argued by the learned coun-el for the petitioner that the objection went to the very root of the matter and it should have been decided by the Disciplinary Officer, namely, the District Judge and not by the Enquiry Officer. It was lastly submitted by learned counsel that rule 32 (c) was not applicable as no revision petition was filed in the High Court by any person. 7. It was lastly submitted by learned counsel that rule 32 (c) was not applicable as no revision petition was filed in the High Court by any person. 7. The proposition which has been propounded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if a disciplinary enquiry has been held earlier in respect of a specific charge resulting in the exoneration of the employee, then a second disciplinary enquiry on the same facts cannot be ordered, unless there is a provision for reviewing an order of exoneration, in the relevant service rules or in any other law for the time being in force. In Dwarka Chands case (supra), a division bench of this Court held that it was not open to a higher authority to order a fresh disciplinary enquiry, ignoring the result of the earlier disciplinary enquiry exonerating the public servant and the following observations were made in this regard :- "It was urged on behalf of the State that if this view is taken, it might result in great prejudice to the State inasmuch as the person holding the first enquiry might have held it in a very slipshod manner fas alleged in this case) or even dishonestly and the State would be helpless. We must say that we are not impressed by this argument for two reasons. In the first place, if a superior officer holds a departmental enquiry in a very slip-shod manner or even dishonestly, the State can certainly take action against that superior officer and in an extreme case even dismiss him for his dishonesty in the departmental enquiry which he conducts. That would in our opinion, be a salutary check which would prevent those holding departmental enquiries from acting in a slipshod manner or dishonestly. In the second place, if the case is one like the present, it would, in our opinion, be open to the State to prosecute a person like the applicant in a Court of law in spite of what a d partmemtal officer might have decided in the departmental enquiry one way or the other. Therefore, the danger to the State is really not so great as has been submitted. Therefore, the danger to the State is really not so great as has been submitted. On the other hand, if we were to hold hat a second departmental enquiry could be ordered after the previous one has resulted in the exoneration of a public servant, the danger of harassment to the public servant would, in our opinion, be immense. If it were possible to ignore the result of an earlier departmental enquiry, then there will be nothing to prevent a superior officer, if he were so minded, to order a second or a third or a fourth or even a fifth departmental enquiry after the earlier ones had resulted in the exoneration of a public servant." 8. But the question in the present case is as to whether the earlier proceedings were in the nature of a departmental enquiry and whether the petitioner was exonerated at an earlier departmental enquiry, which would have the effect of debarring a fresh departmental enquiry against him, in respect of the question of drawing house rent allowance by him. It appears from the writ petition that on October 9, 1965 the petitioner filed an application before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, stating that he was residing in a rented house and as such he should be allowed house rent allowance as per rules and he also appended a certificate along with his application that he was residing in a rented house. In the year 1969, the petitioner was transferred out of Jodhpur. Then in October 1970 the petitioner was again transferred to Jodhpur and then he gave a fresh application claiming house rent allowance. When a discrepency was discovered in his versions, the petitioner submitted an affidavit (Ex.R/1) on November 15, 1972 to the effect that he has separated from his father and was living in a sepa-rute rented house since October 23,1972 and further that the petitioner has 9/48th share in his ancestral house, which did not provide him sufficient accommodation for his residance. In fact the variation between the two declaration made by the petitioner, one in the year 1965 and other in the year 1972 appears to have led to the filing of a fresh complaint by Kalyan Das on March 12, 1973 before the High Court in which he referred to the two different declarations made by the petitioner at different times. This complaint was forwarded by the High Court to the District Judge for an enquiry and when the District Judge thereafter submitted in his report dated March 24, 1973 that the matter renquires further examination, the High Court directed the learned District Judge to proceed with a regular enquiry into the matter. 9. The order passed by the learned District Judge, on the earlier occasion on March 12, 1968, on three complaints filed by Kalyan Das, clearly go to show that merely a preliminary enquiry in respect of two matters contained in those complaints was proposed to be held at that stage. The Judge, Small Causes Court, Jodhpur, who made the preliminary enquiry, submitted his report on January, 7, 1971 to the learned District Judge. The petitioner claims that the earlier enquiry was a disciplinary enquiry because on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the learned District Judge by his order dated February 9, 1971 imposed a penalty upon the petitioner for contravention of Rule 14 (b) of Government Servant and Pensioners Conduct Rules. It may be pointed out that the aforesaid penalty was imposed upon the petitioner by the learned District Judge, not as a result of any disciplinary enquiry but on the basis of the admission made by the petitioner in the course of preliminary enquiry proceedings, namely, that he had prosecuted further studies and appeared at the B.A. Examination without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority. As a matter of fact no disciplinary enquiry of any sort, either under Rule 16 or Rule 17, was taken against the petitioner on the earlier occasion. The High Court, while examining the matter under Rule 32, clearly took the view that the earlier proceedings did not constitute a disciplinary enquiry, either under Rule 16 or Rule 17 of the C.C.A. Rules. The learned Administrative Judge, Justice P.N. Shinghal, as he then was, observed in the order passed under Rule 32 that the whole matter was handled on the earlier occasion in a manner not provided under the Rules. I find myself fully in agreement with the view taken by the then Administrative Judge in this matter. 10. The learned Administrative Judge, Justice P.N. Shinghal, as he then was, observed in the order passed under Rule 32 that the whole matter was handled on the earlier occasion in a manner not provided under the Rules. I find myself fully in agreement with the view taken by the then Administrative Judge in this matter. 10. It appears to me that a penalty could not have been imposed upon the petitioner on the basis of the admission made by him in the course of the preliminary enquiry, without taking recourse to properly constituted disciplinary proceedings, either under Rule 16 or Rule 17, of the CCA. Rules. It may be that the admission of guilt made by the employee in the course of preliminary enquiry may obviate the necessity of examining any further evidence on the part of the department in the course of the departmental enquiry, as held by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. Karunamoy Banerjee (2), but the holding of a proper disciplinary enquiry, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 16 or 17 of the CCA. Rules is imperative and could not have been dispensed with by the learned District Judge. It is rather unfortunate that the learned District Judge did not refer to the relevant rules before proceeding further on the earlier occasion. In the aforesaid case it was observed by their lordships that if the workman admits his guilt, then to insist upon the management to lead evidence about the allegations will be only an empty formality. In such a case, it will be open to the management to examine the workman himself in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any explanation for his conduct or to place before the management any circumstances which would go to mitigate the gravity of the offence. Even if the delinquent employee made some statement which amounted to admission during the course of preliminary enquiry, a formal departmental enquiry could not be dispensed with before proceeding to impose a penalty upon him. The departmental, enquiry under the Rules is not an empty formality but it is a serious proceeding intended to give the employee concerned a chance to meet the charge and to prove his innocence. The departmental, enquiry under the Rules is not an empty formality but it is a serious proceeding intended to give the employee concerned a chance to meet the charge and to prove his innocence. However, the mere fact that the learned District Judge proceeded to impose a penalty upon the delinquent employee, in respect of the matter relating to his prosecuting further studies, on the basis of his admission, cannot change the nature of the proceedings which were initiated by his order dated March 12, 1968. it was clearly mentioned in that order that the Judge, Small Causes Court, Jodhpur was appointed to make a preliminary enquiry into the complaint against the petitioner and submit a report to the learned District Judge. 11. The purpose of holding a preliminary enquiry is to decide whether the disciplinary proceedings should or should not be initiated against a delinquent employee. It is not always necessary to hold a preliminary enquiry. But whenever it is ordered, a preliminary enquiry is made to find out whether there is sufficient justification for embarking upon full fledged disciplinary enquiry against the employee concerned. Such a preliminary enquiry does not result either in exoneration or in imposition of punishment, as its purpose is to find out whether a prima facie case exists for issuing a charge-sheet to the delinquent employee and holding a regular enquiry against him. Such a preliminary enquiry is directed for the personal satisfaction of the disciplinary authority, to enable him to come to a conclusion whether the matter need not be persued further or that further action should be taken against the delinquent employee. When a complaint is received against an employee or it otherwise comes to the knowledge of the Disciplinary Authority that the employee has committed a mis-conduct and it is doubtful whether the complaint or other information is true or not, it is desirable to make a preliminary enquiry in order to decide whether or not to proceed further with the complaint or other information and hold a disci-plinary enquiry. Further, a preliminary enquiry is quite distinct in its nature and effect from a formal disciplinary enquiry, which begins with the giving of a regular charge-sheet along with a statement of allegations. Further, a preliminary enquiry is quite distinct in its nature and effect from a formal disciplinary enquiry, which begins with the giving of a regular charge-sheet along with a statement of allegations. The procedure of conducting a preliminary enquiry before launching a formal investigation or enquiry into the misconduct of a delinquent employee is usually resorted to find out whether a prima facie case exists for proceeding further against the delinquent government servant. The preliminary enquiry may take widely different forms, depending upon the nature of the complaint and the discretion of the concerned officer. He may only ask for the explanation of the delinquent employee or may seek material from other sources. Formal evidence may or may not be recorded at a preliminary enquiry. No procedure or formality need be observed while holding a preliminary enquiry nor any no ice thereof is required to be given to the delinquent employee. He has no vested right to examine the record of the preliminary enquiry as the object thereof is the satisfaction of the officer concerned to find out as to whether a prima facie case exists to start disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the form and procedure of a preliminary enquiry is at the discretion of the officer holding such enquiry and he may call for the explanation of the delinquent officer and may also examine evidence during the course of the preliminary enquiry, if he thinks it proper to do so. If a preliminary enquiry is conducted, the disciplinary authority should decide thereafter, as to whether to start disciplinary proceedings or not. If the prelimi-nary investigation makes out a prima facie case for proceeding further in the matter, a disciplinary enquiry may be initiated on the basis of the report of the preliminary enquiry. Even if the officer holding the preliminary enquiry gives a notice to and permits the delinquent employee to have his say in the matter at that stage and even allows him to cross examine the witnesses and also to produce his defence, yet it would not waive the requirement of affording the delinquent employee full opportunity of his defence after a formal charge-sheet is given and a disciplinary enquiry is initiated. It can not be said that there is a duplication as the nature and purpose of the two proceedings are widely different. 12. It can not be said that there is a duplication as the nature and purpose of the two proceedings are widely different. 12. In Maghraj vs. State of Rajasthan (3) it was held by this Court that if a government servant tenders an unqualified apology during the course of an enquiry, as provided in Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules, it would amount to an admission of the charge and holding of further enquiry may be dispensed with. It was probably on account of the admission of the petitioner, on the question of prosecuting further studies without permission, made in his reply dated May, 25, 1968, that the learned District Judge did not think it necessary to initiate a formal departmental enquiry against him in respect of that charge. However, so far as the question of illegally drawing house rent allowance is concerned, it appears that as the complainant did not appear and did not produce any evidence in the course of the preliminary enquiry conducted against the petitio- ner, the matter was not proceeded with further and no disciplinary enquiry was held against him. Then, after the second declaration was filed by the petitioner in the year 1973 and a fresh complaint was made drawing the attention to the contradictory statements contained in the two declarations filed by the petitioner, a fresh preliminary enquiry was made by the learned District Judge, who submitted his report to the High Court on March 24, 1973 and expressed the opinion that the matter required further examination. Thereafter this Court directed the learned District Judge to hold a proper disciplinary enquiry in the matter. Thus, the holding of a preliminary enquiry in the matter earlier could not debar the learned District Judge from holding a disciplinary enquiry, after giving a formal charge sheet. As already mentioned above, a preliminary enquiry is usually made to satisfy the disciplinary authority as to whether a prima facie case exists against the delinquent employee or not and such a preliminary enquiry must not be mistaken for a regular disciplinary, enquiry, which may result in inflicting upon the delinquent employee, one of the punishments provided under Rule 14 of the CCA. Rules. 13. Rules. 13. In Penjamin (A.O.) Versus Union of India (4) it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that so far as a preliminary enquiry is concerned, there is no question of its being governed by Article 311(2) of the Constitution, for a preliminary enquiry is really made for the satisfaction of the Government to decide whether the punitive action should be taken or not under the contract of the rules. There is no element of punitive proceedings in the preliminary enquiry in the idea behind such an enquiry is not to punish the government servant but to see whether a prima facie case is made out against him, so that a formal disciplinary enquiry may be started into the conduct of the government servant concerned. As the earlier proceedings which were initiated by the learned District Judge by his order dated March 12, 1968 were in the nature at a preliminary enquiry they were not punitive proceedings and such proceedings should not be confused with the holding of a formal disciplinary enquiry and there was no exoneration. Such a preliminary enquiry does not prohibit the learned District Judge from holding a formal disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner in respect of drawing house rent allowance between the period from October 9, 1965 to September 30, 1969. 14. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the provisions of clause (3) of Rule 32 which provides that no action under the rules should be initiated more than 6 months after the date of the order to be revised. As the earlier proceedings taken against the petitioner were in the nature of a preliminary enquiry and no disciplinary, enquiry either under Rule 16 or 17 of the R. was undertaken against the petitioner earlier, sub-rule (3) of Rule 32 did not debar the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. This Court took this view on the administrative side which appears to be well founded. As this Court did not purport to reopen any disciplinary enquiry which might have been conducted against the petitioner earlier, there was no question of exercise of the power under R 32. This Court took this view on the administrative side which appears to be well founded. As this Court did not purport to reopen any disciplinary enquiry which might have been conducted against the petitioner earlier, there was no question of exercise of the power under R 32. This Court only clarified the position that as no departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner earlier, and so the holding of the preliminary enquiry on the earlier occasion did not create any bar against the taking of departmental proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of illegal drawing of house rent allowance. As rule 32(3) itself was not applicable the limitation provided under Rule 32(3) was not attracted in the matter and this Court merely informed the District Judge that he could hold a disciplinary enquiry, as he himself had felt while submitting his report dated March 24, 1973 that the matter of drawing house rent allowance by the petitioner required re-examination. As the earlier proceedings were not in the nature of departmental proceedings, either under Rule 16 or 17, but were only in the nature of a preliminary enquiry, there was no impediment on the learned District Judge re-examing the matter; as felt by him, and holding a disciplinary enquiry under rule 16 The initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by giving him a charge sheet along with a statement of allegation by the learned District Judge cannot, therefore, be held to be illegal in any manner. 15. An objection about the maintainability of the departmental enquiry proceedings was raised before the Enquiry Officer, namely the Additional District Judge, Jodhpur and as such he was quite competent to decide the preliminary objection and proceed further with the enquiry on merits. If any objection is raised during the course of disciplinary enquiry before the Enquiry officer, it would not be proper for him to stay the proceedings and refer the matter to the disciplinary authority every time and every stage. The objection may go to the root of the matter or may be in the nature of the preliminary objection or may be of any other nature, yet so long as the Enquiry Officer was seized of the matter, he was quite competent to decide the objection raised before him, unless the objection is of such a nature that the Enquiry Officer may be incompetent to deal with such objection. In the present case, I am not satisfied that the objection raised by the petitioner was of such a nature that the Enquiry Officer could not have disposed of the same after hearing both the parties. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer did not afford him an opportunity of hearing or did not hear him in respect of the preliminary objection raised by him before that officer. The principle of natural justice only enjoins the Enquiry Officer or the departmental authority concerned to allow the delinquent employee full opportunity of hearing before proceeding to decide the question. An opportunity of hearing having been given, the Enquiry Officer was competent to decide the objection raised before him in the present case and it was neither necessary nor proper for him to stay his hands and refer the matter to the disciplinary authority. 16. As the petitioner has not been able to make out any case, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. The Enquiry Officer is directed to take further proceedings in the disciplinary enquiry pending against the petitioner, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. 17. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this writ petition.