Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2402 (RAJ)

Karan Singh through his LRs. v. Collector

2006-08-02

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2006
Honble RAFIQ, J.–In the present writ petition, the petitioner Karan Singh challenged the order of his dismissal dated 26.12.1992 (Annex.25) with the prayer that the said order and the inquiry proceedings initiated against him may be quashed and set aside and further prayed that he may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Unfortunately, the petitioner expired during pendency of writ petition on 28.11.1999. This Court by its order dated 26.05.2003 allowed his legal representatives to substitute him as the petitioners. In the present judgment however, reference to the petitioner wherever made should be construed as the original writ petitioner. (2). The petitioner was appointed on the post of Patwari on 01.08.1956. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 29.08.1975 under Rule 14 of the Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (for short "the Rules of 1957" hereinafter). (3). Although from various charges in the charge-sheet the wordings of the charges are different but all of them convey the same meaning according to which petitioner issued false receipts to the farmers while realizing the amount of revenue and has not deposited the money with the treasury which constitutes embezzlement. The amount of recovery in relation to charge No.1 was Rs.16,181.50 paisa, charge No.3 was Rs.5645.21 paisa, charge No.5 was Rs.770.58 paisa and charge No.6 Rs.1172.61 paisa. (4). The petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.08.1975. The petitioner represented against his suspension. His representation was decided vide order dated 5.5.1979 and he was reinstated in service. However, he was again placed under suspension by order dated 9.07.1979. The petitioner challenged the subsequent order of suspension by way of filing writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.365/1981, which was allowed vide judgment dated 26.2.1981, which was allowed vide judgment dated 26.2.1991 and the order of suspension dated 9.7.1979 was set aside. (5). The petitioner has contended that during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and prolonged suspension, he was not granted benefits of pay fixation under various Revised Pay Scale Rules whereunder pay of the Government servants was revised four times respectively on 01.09.1976, 01.09.1981, 01.09.1986 and 01.09.1988 respectively. (6). The petitioner was not provided the list of documents or list of witnesses at the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. (6). The petitioner was not provided the list of documents or list of witnesses at the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The Inquiry Officer did not fix any date, place and time for examination of the departmental witnesses and on such date was ever communicated to the petitioner. It has been argued that all the departmental witnesses were examined by the Inquiry Officer in his absence and the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine any of these witnesses. (7). The petitioner for the first time came to know about conclusion of the inquiry when he was served with a show cause notice along with inquiry report. The petitioner stated that during the disciplinary proceedings, the requested for assistance of Office Superintendent (suspended) Shri Chandmalji Jain vide his application dated 26.2.1978 but no assistance was allowed to him. (8). The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.10.1981 proposing his removal from service. The petitioner submitted interim reply to the notice on 19.10.1981, in which he has stated tat complete proceedings have been conducted in collusive and illegal manner. Apart from denying charges on merits of the case, the petitioner also submitted that he was not afforded the opportunity to produce witnesses or any other evidence. In his reply he also stated that he could not file complete reply in absence of important documents and therefore requested for supply as many as eight documents which included the copies of inquiry proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer, copies of the complaints made by Laxman Singh and Bopal Singh, copies of statement of witnesses namely Govind Singh, Laxman Singh, Sita Ram, Ragunath and Karan Singh recorded by the Inquiry Officer. His application however was rejected by the Disciplinary Authority who by order dated 12.12.1981 granted him last opportunity to submit his reply by 28.12.1981. The petitioner therefore, under compulsion filed the reply and in the reply he again raised the issue with regard to non-supply of the aforesaid documents. The petitioner submitted that during the inquiry proceedings when he requested for inspection of the original documents, he was informed by Tehsildar that the records were in custody of the Police. Such records included the receipts which were allegedly forged/manipulated and over-written by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that during the inquiry proceedings when he requested for inspection of the original documents, he was informed by Tehsildar that the records were in custody of the Police. Such records included the receipts which were allegedly forged/manipulated and over-written by the petitioner. The Collector, Bundi who is Disciplinary Authority informed the SHO, Keshorai Patan vide letter dated 11.10.1977 for showing the records to the petitioner on 3.11.1977. However, when the petitioner went to the Police Station, the records were not made available to him. The petitioner again requested the Collector but no action was taken on his request. In these circumstances, the petitioner was handicapped in defending his case before the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority. (9). The District Collector on the basis of such inquiry dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 8.12.1982. However, this order was quashed in his earlier writ petition No.298/182 by a Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 9.2.1983 on the ground that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for removing him from service and instead, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of dismissal. (10). The petitioner was again issued a show cause notice dated 29.08.1993 for dismissal from service requiring him to submit his reply. The petitioner again submitted reply on 9.10.1983 and requested that even though petitioner was placed under suspension at the time of his reinstatement, he was not being paid subsisting allowance for last three years. (11). The petitioner then filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1854/1983 challenging the show cause notice dated 29.08.1993 on the ground that he was not being paid subsistence allowance since 30.09.1981 and in absence of which, he could not effectively defend himself. The second suspension order was again quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 26.2.1991 on the ground of non-payment of subsistence allowance with the direction to the authorities to pay subsistence allowance, but no action has been taken by the respondents to comply with such order of the Court. In these circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority again vide order dated 26.12.1992 removed the petitioner even though the petitioner was due to retire from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.1992. (12). The respondents contested the present writ petition and filed a detailed reply. In these circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority again vide order dated 26.12.1992 removed the petitioner even though the petitioner was due to retire from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.1992. (12). The respondents contested the present writ petition and filed a detailed reply. In the reply, it has been stated that a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner and after evidence, challan was filed against him. It was stated that when suspension of petitioner was revoked on 5.5.1979, it was mentioned that departmental inquiry would continue against him but subsequently the petitioner was again placed under suspension on 9.7.1979. It was stated that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.365/1981 filed by the petitioner against the suspension order was allowed by this Court on account of non-filing of reply by the respondents. Consequently upon this judgment, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 20.7.1993. Since the petitioner was under suspension, benefit of revision of pay scale was not allowed to him. However, the payment of outstanding subsistence allowance and salary which the petitioner claimed in writ petition No.1854/1983 was also made to him. The petitioner on his request was allowed the services of Shri Prem Prakash as defence assistant. It was denied that petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing by the inquiry officer. Several opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce evidence but he failed to avail of the same. In these circumstances, when the Inquiry Officer found the charges proved against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority awarded penalty of dismissal vide order dated 6.2.1982. When the order of dismissal was quashed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.298/1982 vide judgment dated 9.2.1983, he was reinstated in service on 29.7.1983. When a fresh show cause notice was served on 29.8.1983, the petitioner again challenged the same in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1854/1983 which was finally decided on 1.4.1992. The order of penalty was thereafter passed after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the same does not suffer from any illegality of infirmity. (13). I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. (14). Shri R.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the judgment dated 01.03.1993 of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions No.1304/1992, No.1308/1992 and No.1310/1992. (13). I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. (14). Shri R.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the judgment dated 01.03.1993 of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions No.1304/1992, No.1308/1992 and No.1310/1992. By this judgment, proceedings pending against the petitioner in Criminal Regular Case No.172/1979, No.43/1983 and No.42/1983 pertaining to the FIR registered against him for various offences at Police Station Keshoraipatan District Bundi have been quashed. He has argued that charges against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings are founded on the same set of facts which were proposed to be proved on the same evidence by the department. Once when this Court has quashed the proceedings in criminal cases, the charges against the petitioner cannot be taken as proved in the disciplinary proceedings. (15). Shri R.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in complete violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as in utter disregard of the provisions contained in Rule 16 of CCA Rules. He did not fix any date, place or time for examination of the witnesses and the petitioner was never communicated as to when such witnesses were to be examined. All the departmental witnesses were examined behind the back of the petitioner and he was not allowed any opportunity to cross-examine them. He has argued that petitioner was forced to file reply to the charge- sheet without supply/inspection of the documents demanded by him inasmuch as, inspite of instructions of the Collector, Bundi who was Disciplinary Authority, SHO Police Station Keshoraipatan District Bundi did not allow the petitioner to inspect the documents. (16). When report of the Inquiry Officer was served on the petitioner with the show cause notice, he on perusal thereof requested for as many as eight documents which included copies of inquiry proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer, copies of the complaints made by Laxman Singh and Bopal Singh, copies of statements of witnesses namely Govind Singh, Laxman Singh, Sita Ram, Ragunath and Karan Singh recorded by the Inquiry Officer so that he could file a comprehensive reply to the show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority however rejected his prayer on the premise that there was no provision for supply of documents at the stage of notice under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The Disciplinary Authority however rejected his prayer on the premise that there was no provision for supply of documents at the stage of notice under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to submit his reply. He has argued that all the witnesses have been examined behind his back and he was not allowed even to cross-examine them which has seriously impaired his right of defence. The respondents in passing the impugned order have completely negated the principles of natural justice. The order passed on the basis of such an inquiry tantamounts to arbitrary exercise of power and is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. (17). Shri R.S. Mehta in support of his case relied upon two judgments of Honble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in (1991(10) SLR 159 (SC)) and Managing & Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar reported in (1993(5) SLR 532(SC)). (18). On the other hand, Shri A.K. Sharma, learned Dy. Government Advocate supported the averments made in the reply and has argued that opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. With the kind of gravity of charges against the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal was the only appropriate remedy which should have been awarded to the petitioner. He has argued that scope for interference in the disciplinary proceedings by this Court is rather limited. According to him, this Court can interfere in the disciplinary proceedings only if it is shown that there is total lack of evidence or there was violation of principles of natural justice or any mandatory rule of procedure for conducting such proceedings or the inquiry. He has therefore prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. (19). I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel in the light of material on record. (20). It would be evident from para 10 of the writ petition that the petitioner has pleaded that the Inquiry Officer did not fix any date, place or time for examination of the witnesses and the same was never communicated to the petitioner. All the departmental witnesses were examined behind the back of the petitioner and he was not afforded any opportunity to cross- examine them. In reply to para 10 of the writ petition, respondents have devoted fall two pages but the pleadings are vague and unspecific. All the departmental witnesses were examined behind the back of the petitioner and he was not afforded any opportunity to cross- examine them. In reply to para 10 of the writ petition, respondents have devoted fall two pages but the pleadings are vague and unspecific. Respondent in reply to this para submitted that the request of the petitioner for services of Shri Prem Prakash was allowed to defend himself. As regards the allegation that all the departmental witnesses were examined by the Inquiry Officer without giving any notice to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine them, the respondents instead of giving any straight answer have come out with a plea that the petitioner in this para has not specifically mentioned the inquiry to which he is making reference as two departmental inquiries were pending against him. Relevant part of reply to this para is as under:- ``The petitioner in this para has not specifically mentioned the enquiry to which he is making reference as two departmental inquiries are pending against him. In the absence of specific averment no specific reply can be given. it may however be mentioned here that one of the enquiries which was initiated against the petitioner was decided when the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. It is pertinent to mention here that several opportunities were given to the petitioner but he failed to do so. Copy of the said report dated 31.3.1981 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-R/7." (21). How possibly could the respondents feign ignorance about the inquiry in question when they have actually filed correct inquiry report Annexure R/7. A perusal of this inquiry report would clearly reveal that the Inquiry Officer has submitted his report and conducted the inquiry, in a perfunctory manner with no regard to the procedure of inquiry as contemplated by Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the CCA Rules). He has not mentioned that inspite of notice the petitioner absented from inquiry proceedings and if so, remained absent on how many dates. He has also not stated as to how many times the petitioner was afforded opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses and in spite of that he failed to avail such opportunities. He has not mentioned that inspite of notice the petitioner absented from inquiry proceedings and if so, remained absent on how many dates. He has also not stated as to how many times the petitioner was afforded opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses and in spite of that he failed to avail such opportunities. He has also not mentioned as to how many documents were cited by the department in support of the charges and how were they relevant for proving the charges against the petitioner. He has devoted one page of the report to the reproduction of the charges and narration of the basic facts and in the subsequent page he has found two charges against the petitioner proved with half of each page being devoted to each of the charges. (22). Shri R.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in 1991 (10) SLR 159 (SC) and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar reported in 1993 (5) SLR 532 (SC). In both these cases, the grievance raised was with regard to non-supply of copy of inquiry report. The Honble Supreme Court in the context of those cases held that theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice are intended to uphold the Rule of Law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. It was held that right to receive report of the inquiry officer is an essential part of the reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also of the principles of natural justice since the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer form an important material on which the Disciplinary Authority comes to its conclusion. It is difficult to say in advance as to what extent the findings of the inquiry influence the Disciplinary Authority while drawing its conclusion but the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is difficult to say in advance as to what extent the findings of the inquiry influence the Disciplinary Authority while drawing its conclusion but the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. Although it is true that Disciplinary Authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of evidence recorded in the inquiry, it is equally true that Disciplinary Authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer along with the evidence on record which finding may or may not be based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, therefore, unknown to the employee but are taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority while arriving at its conclusion. Although these observations, in the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, have been made in the context of non-supply of the copy of the inquiry report. But the theory of reasonable opportunity and principles of natural justice, which is the bedrock of these two celebrated cases, is equally relevant for the purpose of deciding present case also. (23). On the question of non-supply of the important documents, arguments of the petitioner can be divided into two parts. One with regard to inspection of the original documents requested for by him which were in the police custody and which inspection eventually did not materialize inspite of specific direction of the Collector, Bundi who was also Disciplinary Authority. The other part pertains to the dernand made by him for supply of eight documents in his application dated 19.10.1981 which he demanded in response to show cause notice. The petitioner demanded copies of the proceedings of the Inquiry Officer, which were not supplied to him, he also demanded copies of the complaints made by Laxman Singh and Bopal Singh which also were not supplied to him. The petitioner demanded copies of the statements of the witnesses namely Govind Singh, Laxman Singh, Sita Ram, Ragunath and Karan Singh recorded by the Inquiry Officer which according to him were recorded behind his back and opportunity was not provided to him to cross-examine them which also were not supplied to him and he was also not given demanded copies of the brief submitted by Presenting Officer. While demanding copies of these documents by making a request in the interim reply dated 19.10.1981 which he submitted immediately after receiving show cause notice, the petitioner specifically alleged that the Inquiry Officer has not conducted the inquiry properly and the report submitted by him and conclusions recorded therein were not sufficient to prove charges against him. He demanded copies of the aforesaid documents to prepare and submit final reply to the show cause notice because a very grave penalty of removal from service was proposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 12.12.1981 instead of supplying copies of the documents, stated that there was no provision for supplying of documents at the stage of show cause notice served under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, last opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his reply to the charge-sheet. In these circumstances, the petitioner was left with no option but to submit the reply to show cause notice. (24). Allegations to the above effect have been made by the petitioner in great details in para 12 of the writ petition to which no specific reply has been given by the respondents. Whatever averments have been made in para 12 of the reply to the writ petition are highly vague and unspecific and which for the facility of the reference are reproduce hereunder:- "That para 12 of the writ petition as stated by the petitioner is not admitted. Reply is already given in foregoing paras. The Enquiry Officer proceeded in the enquiry in accordance with law. The petitioner was given show cause notice and he filed reply. Other contentions made in this para are denied." (25). When the petitioner demanded copies of the documents including of the statements recorded by the Inquiry Officer in his absence, which statements have infact been made basis of his findings against the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer in his report, the Disciplinary Authority clearly committed an illegality in refusing to provide him copies of such statements on the premises that there was no provision for supplying copies of the statements of witnesses and other documents at the time of service of notice under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, when the respondents have come out with no explanation whatsoever as to why departmental witnesses were examined by Inquiry Officer in the absence of the petitioner without giving him opportunity to cross-examine them, non-supply of copies of statements which forms the only basis of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, resulted into a grave failure of justice inasmuch as negation of principles of natural justice and cause great prejudice to the petitioner. (26). Learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect has relied upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Pranab Chowdhury vs. Chapra Thana Agricultural Marketing Co- operative Society Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2004(8) SLR 132, wherein the Calcutta High Court in the facts of the said case in para 13 of the judgment observed as under:- ``13. Enquiry Committee was formed. The petitioner was not called, Enquiry conducted behind him and the petitioner was found guilty and he was not supplied with the enquiry report. The relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner and he was given his reply to the Chargesheet and principle of natural justice was grossly violated. The petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing which is another example of the violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was found guilty by the Enquiry Committee on the self same offence, which is pending before the criminal court. The glaring instance of an illegality is that the petitioner was dismissed from service on the allegation of non-supply of the certified copy of the order passed by this Honble Court in the instant Writ Petition that is dismissal order was passed on an allegation which does constitute a charge in the chargesheet. The entire proceeding is illegal. The order of dismissal of the petitioner from services is illegal and is liable to be set aside. (27). The Honble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Bombay vs. Nurul Latif Khan reported in 1966 SC 269 while considering the argument with regard to valuable right of the delinquent to cross-examine the witnesses made the following observations in para 14 as under:- ``(14) It is true that the oral enquiry which the enquiry officer is bound to hold can well be regulated by him in his discretion. If the charge-sheet officer starts cross-examining the departmental witnesses in an irrelevant manner, such cross- examination can be checked and controlled. If the officer desires to examine witnesses whose evidence may appear to the enquiry officer to be thoroughly irrelevant, the enquiry officer may refuse to examine such witnesses; but in doing so, he will have to record his special and sufficient reasons. In other words, the right given to the charge-sheeted officer to cross-examine the departmental witnesses or examine his own witnesses can be legitimately examined and controlled by the enquiry officer; he would be justified in conducting the enquiry in such a way that its proceedings are not allowed to be unduly deliberately prolonged. But, in our opinion, it would be impossible to accept the argument that if the chargesheeted officer wants to lead oral evidence, the enquiry officer can say that having regard to the charges framed against the officer, he would not hold any oral enquiry. (28). The manner in which the inquiry report has been prepared and the inquiry proceedings were proceeded with, shows that the Inquiry Officer was under a mistaken notion that since the charge-sheet against the petitioner was served under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) 1957, the detailed procedure contained in Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, would not apply. In fact Rule 14 of the Rules of 1957 is no way different than Rule 16 of CCA Rules. Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Record) Rule merely provides that the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 shall apply in the disciplinary action against the Patwaris. The Rule 14 thus merely adopts the CCA Rules by incorporation to be applied to disciplinary matters in relations to Patwaris. The Inquiry Officer however adopted the procedure which was completely foreign to the cannons of service jurisprudence. He completely ignored and bypassed the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. He was bound to follow the detailed procedure contained in CCA Rules. Conduct of inquiry in any set of Rules for that matter would primarily require adherence to the principles of natural justice which are mandatory in nature and have to be given utmost respect. Procedure of inquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules has given a complete mechanism which is entirely based on the spirit of the principles of natural justice. Conduct of inquiry in any set of Rules for that matter would primarily require adherence to the principles of natural justice which are mandatory in nature and have to be given utmost respect. Procedure of inquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules has given a complete mechanism which is entirely based on the spirit of the principles of natural justice. That even for a guilty to be punished, due regard should be had to the rules and procedure and he should be provided with full opportunity to defend himself. (29). It is of course settled proposition of law that scope of judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness of the decision but it is confined to examination of the manner in which such decision is arrived at. (30). I shall now advert to examine the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in the present case. It appears from the record that the petitioner was not associated with inquiry and the respondents have not asserted even before this Court that the Inquiry Officer called upon him by issuing any notice or communication to participate in the inquiry and he failed to comply. It has not even been asserted by the respondents that the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner were conducted ex parte for reason of his absence. It is also not their stand that the statement of the witnesses were recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the presence of the petitioner and in spite of being given the opportunity, the petitioner failed to cross-examine such witnesses. Not only this, when the petitioner demanded copies of the documents recorded during the disciplinary proceedings because such statements were recorded in his absence and he was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and also when he demanded copies of the proceedings of the inquiry so that with the help of which he could convince the Disciplinary Authority as to in what manner the inquiry proceedings were conducted by the Inquiry Officer and how the petitioner was completely kept in dark about such inquiry proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority refused to supply these documents on a very specious plea that there was no procedure to supply documents at the stage of reply to show cause notice under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Non supply of these documents which were very vital from the point of view of the petitioner to defend his case caused serious prejudice to him as also occasioned miscarriage of justice. All these lecunas would have been cured if only the Disciplinary Authority had applied it mind according to Sub-rule (9) of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and decided to remand the case for further/denovo inquiry because in that event it would have constituted a sufficient reason for his doing so. (31). The CCA Rules gives a complete procedure for conducting disciplinary proceedings. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 of CCA Rules provides that the Government servant shall, for the purpose of preparing his evidence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify provided that such permission may be refused if, for reasons to be recorded in writing in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority, such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the public interest to allow him access thereto. (32). Sub-Rule (6) (a) of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules categorically provides that where the Government servant has pleaded not guilty to the charges, the Inquiry Officer shall ask the Presenting Officer to submit the list of witnesses and documents within 10 days, who shall also sirnultaneously send a copy of the same to the Government servant. Within ten days thereto Delinquent officer, shall submit the list of documents required by him in his defence. The inquiring Authority shall then summon the documents of both sides and ask the parties to admit or deny them. The inquiring Authority then shall summon such evidence giving opportunity to the presenting officer for examination-in- chief and also to the delinquent officer to cross-examine. After close of the evidence, the delinquent officer shall be required to submit the list of witnesses within 10 day which he would like to produce in his defence and then the inquiring Authority after considering the relevancy of the witnesses and the documents shall summon only the relevant witnesses and documents and record the evidence thereof, while giving opportunity of Examination-in- Chief and cross-examination to the respective parties. He shall give an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. He shall give an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Note given below Sub-rule (6) (a) of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules provides that if the Government servant applies for supply of copies of statement of witnesses, the Inquiring Authority shall furnish him such copies as early as possible but not latter than three days before the commencement of the examination of the witnesses. Sub- rule (7) of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefore. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules requires that the Disciplinary Authority may while considering the report of the Inquiring Authority for just and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing remand the case for further/de-novo enquiry, in case it has reason to believe that the enquiry already conducted has been laconic in some respect or the other. (33). For what has been discussed above, the present petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly hereby allowed and the order of penalty dated 26.12.1992 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits including interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _