JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition u/Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 24.9.2002with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the orders Annex. 7 dated 16.7.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur by which all the seven charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved and the petitioner was ordered to be declared unfit and the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bali (respondent No. 4) was directed to get the pattas, which were issued by the petitioner, cancelled, and Annex.8 dated 29.8.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur by which the petitioner was declared unfit to hold the post of Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhandar under the provisions of Secs. 19/38/39 of the Raiasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994') be quashed and set aside. 2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows : The petitioner was elected as Upsarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhandar, Panchayat Samiti, Bali District Pali in the last panchayat election held in the year 2000. On 1.9.2000, a complaint was made against the petitioner by the respondent No. 5-Magan Lal Bohra and few villagers of village Bhandar alleging that the petitioner committed gross misconduct while holding the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhandar. A copy of the said complaint dated 1.9.2000 is marked as Annex.1. The further case of the petitioner is that after receiving the complaint Annex. 1, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur asked the respondent No. 4-Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bali to conduct preliminary enquiry against the petitioner and the respondent No. 4-Vikas Adhikari, after holding preliminary enquiry against the petitioner, submitted his report on 28.1.2002 through Annex.2 and a bare perusal of that preliminary enquiry report Annex.2 reveals that as many as 8 charges were found proved against the petitioner and net result of that preliminary enquiry was that the petitioner while earlier holding the post of Sarpanch had misused his power and caused pecuniary loss to the Panchayat Exchequer and further, the petitioner used to interfere with the work, which was being discharged by woman Sarpanch belonging to scheduled tribe category and thus, it was proposed that proceedings for removing the petitioner from the post of Upsarpanch be initiated. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur through Annex.3 dated 7.3.2002 served the charges and statement of allegations upon the petitioner and a bare perusal of Annex.3 reveals that as many as 7 charges were levelled against the petitioner and out of 7 charges, the charges No. 1 to 6 were to the effect that the petitioner while holding the post of Sarpanch had committed misconduct and the charge No. 7 was to the effect that while holding the present post of Upsarpanch, the petitioner used to interfere with the work, which was being discharged by woman Sarpanch belonging to scheduled tribe category and he used to make forged signature of woman Sarpanch. A reply to the said charges Annex.3 was filed by the petitioner through Annex.4 and in that reply Annex.4, he denied all the charges levelled against him. In respect of charges No. 1 to 6, the case of the petitioner was that these charges related to the period when he was holding the post of Sarpanch from 1981 to 1988 and for the delinquencies committed by him during that period, he cannot be punished twice as he had already been punished through order Annex.5 dated 30.8.1993 passed by the respondent No. 1- State of Rajasthan and he was warned to remain careful in future. In respect of charge No. 7, the case of the petitioner was that the woman Sarpanch through Annex.6 dated 17.3.2002 had herself stated that the petitioner had not misused his power and the petitioner had never attempted to trespass or interfere with the work which was being discharged by her. In respect of charge No. 7, the case of the petitioner was that the woman Sarpanch through Annex.6 dated 17.3.2002 had herself stated that the petitioner had not misused his power and the petitioner had never attempted to trespass or interfere with the work which was being discharged by her. The further case of the petitioner is that inspite of the above facts stated by the petitioner through reply (Annex.4) to the charges Annex.3, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner started regular enquiry against the petitioner and since the petitioner did not appear before him on 1.5.2002 during the course of regular enquiry, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner ordered to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner.The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, after holding ex-parte enquiry against the petitioner, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur passed the order Annex.7 dated 16.7.2002 and by that order Annex.7, the petitioner was held guilty of all the seven charges levelled against him and he was ordered to be declared unfit and thereafter, through order Annex.8 dated 29.8.2002, the petitioner was declared unfit to hold the post of Upsarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhandar and these two orders Annex.7 & Annex. 8 have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on various grounds and the main grounds are as follows:- (i) That for the.delinquencies relating to the period from 1981 to 1988 when the petitioner was holding the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhandar, he could not be held disqualified under any of the provisions of the Act of 1994 twice especially when for the alleged delinquencies a final order Annex. 5 dated 30.8.1993 had already been passed against the petitioner and thus, the entire proceedings of regular enquiry conducted by the respondent No. 2- Divisional Commissioner are wholly without jurisdiction. (ii) That the procedure for conducting regular enquiry has been provided in R. 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996') and since the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner ex-parte, therefore, in view of this fact, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner based his report on the preliminary enquiry report Annex. (ii) That the procedure for conducting regular enquiry has been provided in R. 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996') and since the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner ex-parte, therefore, in view of this fact, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner based his report on the preliminary enquiry report Annex. 2 treating it as a gospel truth and he did not record the statement of any witness in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner and thus, the enquiry conducted by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner against the petitioner was per se illegal and against the Rules of 1996 and therefore, the impugned orders Annex.7 and Annex.8 are liable to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that after passing of the order Annex. 8 dated 29.8.2002, the petitioner filed a review application and the same was rejected by order Annex.R./1 dated 13.1.2003 and thus, the petitioner has concealed material facts and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.On first submission of the petitioner, the case of the respondents is that no doubt through order Annex.5 dated 30.8.1993 the petitioner was warned for his previous misconduct, but thereafter, he again committed serious irregularities and thus, he was rightly punished through impugned orders Annex.7 and Annex.8.On second submission of the petitioner, the case of the respondents is that since ex-parte proceedings were going on against the petitioner, therefore, in view of this, there was no need to record the evidence. Hence, no case for interference is made out and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. 4. There is no dispute on the point that a complaint Annex.1 was made against the petitioner and on that complaint Annex.1, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur asked the respondent No. 4-Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bali to conduct preliminary enquiry and after holding preliminary enquiry, the respondent No. 4-Vikas Adhikari submitted his preliminary enquiry report Annex.2 against the petitioner. 5. There is also no dispute on the point that thereafter, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner through Annex. 5. There is also no dispute on the point that thereafter, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner through Annex. 3 served charges and statement of allegations upon the petitioner and a bare perusal of Annex. 3 reveals that seven charges were levelled against the petitioner and in respect of charges No. 1 to 6, there was no mention of the date when the petitioner committed irregularities while discharging his duties as Sarpanch. 6. There is also no dispute on the point that through Annex.4, the petitioner submitted reply to the charges levelled against him through Annex.3. 7. There is also no dispute on the point that through order Annex.5 dated 30.8.1993, the petitioner was punished and he was warned to remain careful in future. 8. There is also no dispute on the point that on 1.5.2002, orders to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner in the enquiry were passed. 9. There is also no dispute on the point that thereafter, after holding ex-parte enquiry against the petitioner, the impugned order Annex.7 dated 16.7.2002was passed by the respondent No. 2- Divisional Commissioner and a bare perusal of that impugned order Annex. 7 reveals the following things:- (i) That as many as seven charges were levelled against the petitioner. (ii) That on 1.5.2002, orders to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner were passed and on behalf of the Department, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pali was heard alone. (iii) That the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner took into consideration the submissions raised by the Chief Executive Officer and he also perused the preliminary enquiry report Annex.2 and he also considered the reply Annex. 4 filed by the petitioner to the charges levelled against him through Annex.3. (iv) That the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner did not record evidence of any witness while conducting the enquiry against the petitioner and he based his report only on the basis of:- (a) The submissions raised by the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the Department. (b) The preliminary enquiry report Annex. 2 submitted by the respondent No. 4 - Vikas Adhikari. (c) The reply Annex.4 submitted by the petitioner to the charge levelled against him through Annex.3. (v) That the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner did not give findings on each and every charge levelled against the petitioner. (b) The preliminary enquiry report Annex. 2 submitted by the respondent No. 4 - Vikas Adhikari. (c) The reply Annex.4 submitted by the petitioner to the charge levelled against him through Annex.3. (v) That the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner did not give findings on each and every charge levelled against the petitioner. (vi) That the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner only came to the conclusion that no doubt through order Annex.5 dated 30.8.1993, the petitioner was earlier punished and warned to remain careful in future, but thereafter, he again committed serious irregularities and violated the provisions of Section 38 of the '' Act of 1994 and thus, he was ordered to be declared unfit. 10. The procedure for regular enquiry has been provided in R. 22 of the Rules of 1996 and for convenience, sub-rules (4) & (5) of the R. 22 of the Rules of 1996 are quoted here:- "22. Procedure of enquiry.- (4) Enquiry Officer shall consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. Opportunity of cross- examination of witnesses shall be provided to the opposite side. (5) Enquiry Officer shall prepare a report on conclusion of enquiry, recording his findings on every charge as proved or not proved or partly proved alongwith the reasons therefore, and submit it to the State Government for final decision. 11. In the present case, no doubt the petitioner was not present during the course of regular enquiry and ex-parte proceedings were ordered against the petitioner, inspite of that fact, it was the duty of the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner to record evidence to prove charges levelled against the petitioner. Even in cases where the delinquent withdraws from the enquiry and does not remain present, the prescribed procedure should be followed. Therefore, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner was bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1996. Taking preliminary enquiry report Annex. 2 as a basis and submissions of the departmental nominee would not be sufficient to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner because the enquiry against the petitioner was a regular enquiry. Apart from this, it was the duty of the Department to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner by producing reliable and cogent evidence. No evidence whatsoever has been produced by the Department to prove the charges levelled ' against the petitioner. 12. Apart from this, it was the duty of the Department to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner by producing reliable and cogent evidence. No evidence whatsoever has been produced by the Department to prove the charges levelled ' against the petitioner. 12. Furthermore, as already stated above, as many as seven charges were levelled against the petitioner through Annex.3 and in respect of charges No. 1 to 6, there was no mention of the date when the petitioner committed irregularities while discharging his duties as Sarpanch and in absence of this, it cannot be said that after passing the order Annex.5 dated 30.8.1993, the petitioner again committed serious irregularities while holding the post of Sarpanch. The charges itself are vague and are not explicit in nature. 13. Apart from this, Annex.6 dated 17.3.2002 written by woman Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhandar stating that the petitioner had not misused his power and he never interfered with her working, has not been taken into consideration by the respondent No. 2- Divisional Commissioner while considering charge no. 7 levelled against the petitioner. 14. Not only this, respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner has not recorded findings on each and every charge, which was mandatory to do so. 15. On enquiry report, the requirement is that the report of the Enquiry Officer must be a reasoned one and discuss the evidence. Failure to do so renders the order illegal. In the present case, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner had set out the charges in his report and thereafter, on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report Annex. 2 and submissions raised by the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the Department, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Section 38 of the Act of 1994 without recording evidence and the findings on each and every charge levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, the report of the respondent No. 2- Divisional ComB,missioner is no report in the eye of law and thus, cannot be sustained as the enquiry conducted by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner against the petitioner suffers from basic infirmity and illegality. 16. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order Annex. 7 dated 113.7.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside and consequently, the impugned order Annex. 16. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order Annex. 7 dated 113.7.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside and consequently, the impugned order Annex. 8 dated 29.8.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner is also liable to be quashed and set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed and no doubt order Annex.R/1 dated 13.1.2003 passed by the respondent No. 1-State of Rajasthan had not been challenged by the petitioner, but since impugned orders Annex. 7 and Annex. 8 are going to 13, quashed and set aside, therefore, as a consequential relief, order Annex.R/1 is also liable to be quashed and set aside.Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned orders Annex.7 dated 16.7.2002 and Annex.8 dated 29.8.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur are quashed and set aside and as a consequential relief, the order Annex.R/1 dated 13. L2003 passed by the respondent No. 1- State of Rajasthan is also quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******