JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Dr.Bhajan Lal Bhatia challenging the order dated 5/5/1997 by which he was removed from service with the prayer the same be quashed and set-aside with the further direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits and to grant him pay and allowances. 2. The facts of the case are that petitioner was posted as medical jurist in J.L.N. Hospital, Ajmer in the year 1988. On 14/8/1988, one Dharam Das @Dharmu Chhablani was brought to the hospital with the complaint that a private doctor administered him injection, which caused reaction. Eventually, he was declared dead. Police was informed and his dead body was referred to the mortuary for postmortem. Police prepared panchnama of the dead body and handed over the same to the postmortem, where-after the postmortem of the dead body was conducted. It was regarding that dispute that Moolchand Chhablani, brother of deceased Dharam Das @Dharmu Chhablani, lodged a first information report with the Anti Corruption Bureau at Ajmer alleging that petitioner demanded from him a sum of Rs. 500/- for conducting the postmortem and threatened that if money was not given to him, he would cause disfiguration of the dead body. He had only Rs. 200/- and borrowed Rs. 100/- from Bhanwarlal Kankra and gave Rs. 300/- to Dr.Bhajan Lal Bhatia. But the petitioner insisted for giving Rs. 500/- and again threatened that if he did not give this money, he would render dead body in such a position that it will have to be carried in a cloth bag. It was at that time, that Atul Maheshwari, a Congress leader came there and when he came to learn about this attitude of the petitioner, altercation took place between him and the petitioner. Separately, complaint was also made to Dr.M.S. Mathur, Superintendent of JLN Hospital, who set up a committee consisting himself, Dr.P.Prasad, Professor and Head Surgery Department and Dr.V.D. Kaviya, Head of Medical Jurists Department. Petitioner submitted explanation to the said committee. Anti Corruption Bureau conducted the investigation in FIR No.46/1989 for offence u/Ss.5(1)(D)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the "Act of 1988") and Section 161 IPC and referred the matter for prosecution sanction to the Government. The Government however refused to grant sanction and accordingly, the final negative report was submitted before the court. Anti Corruption Bureau conducted the investigation in FIR No.46/1989 for offence u/Ss.5(1)(D)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the "Act of 1988") and Section 161 IPC and referred the matter for prosecution sanction to the Government. The Government however refused to grant sanction and accordingly, the final negative report was submitted before the court. The Special Judge, ACB Cases, Jaipur vide order dated 31/3/1992 accepted the final report. In the preliminary enquiry, prima-facie case was made out against petitioner. It was thereafter that the memorandum of charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, the "CCA Rules") was issued to the petitioner on 30/12/1992. Petitioner filed his short reply on 10/4/1993 denying the charges. The enquiry officer served upon the petitioner a show cause notice dated 8/11/1996 submitting therewith the enquiry report dated 7/10/1995 recording the finding of guilt against petitioner advising him to file representation within fifteen days. Petitioner however vide letter dated 23/1/1996 demanded copy of the preliminary enquiry report and also statement recorded during preliminary enquiry. Respondents vide their letter dated 23/1/1996 conveyed him that there was no need for supply with copy of the preliminary enquiry report and the statements recorded therein. Last opportunity of hearing was given to him to file reply there-against otherwise appropriate order shall be passed. Petitioner thereafter submitted his representation on 2/2/1996. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 5/5/1997 imposed penalty of removal of petitioner. Aggrieved therewith, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Shri M.M. Ranjan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order of penalty has been imposed in a most arbitrary and unreasonable manner. The disciplinary authority failed to appreciate that a criminal case was lodged against petitioner on the self-same complaint, which eventually culminated in a negative final report and the court accepted the same. Petitioner could not therefore be proceeded against in the departmental enquiry on the same subject-matter. It was argued that petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case because brother of the deceased was not in a stable state of mind and at that time when some delay took place in the postmortem, he was annoyed with the petitioner. Soon thereafter, when Shri Atul Maheshwari came there, complainant requested him also to intervene in the matter. It was argued that petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case because brother of the deceased was not in a stable state of mind and at that time when some delay took place in the postmortem, he was annoyed with the petitioner. Soon thereafter, when Shri Atul Maheshwari came there, complainant requested him also to intervene in the matter. Shri Atul Maheshwari as a Congress leader intervened and he had altercation with the petitioner. In fact, he quarrelled with the petitioner to put a pressure upon him to immediately conduct the postmortem. Thereafter, Shri Atul Maheshwari to highlight the issue lodged a false complaint through brother of the deceased. The defence of the petitioner was prejudiced because neither copy of the preliminary enquiry report nor statement recorded therein was supplied to the petitioner. Petitioner has been made a scapegoat. There was no evidence whatsoever against the petitioner. The impugned order is patently illegal being in violation of Rule 16(9) and Rule 16 (10) of the Rules of 1958. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further argued that it was the duty of the disciplinary authority to record finding on each charge while coming to the conclusion about penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner. Report of preliminary enquiry along with statements recorded therein by the enquiry officer and the penalty proposed by the disciplinary authority were liable to be furnished to the petitioner. However, in the present case, neither notice was issued to the petitioner containing finding of the disciplinary authority nor the proposed penalty. The enquiry officer while recording the finding acted in a perfunctory and cursory manner and he did not at all discuss about cross-examination of the witnesses. Petitioner thus was seriously prejudiced as he could not make any representation against the finding of the enquiry officer without obtaining the copies of the statements of the witness and other relevant documents and the preliminary enquiry report. Rather, the respondents vide letter dated 23/1/1996 refused to give copies of these documents. It was argued that disciplinary authority has neither considered nor applied its mind nor considered the aspect of alternatives penalties and incriminating circumstances. Shri M.M. Ranjan, learned senior counsel argued that Rule 16 (10) (ii) of the Rules of 1958 provides for sending the notice under sub-clause (i) and representation to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for its advice. It was argued that disciplinary authority has neither considered nor applied its mind nor considered the aspect of alternatives penalties and incriminating circumstances. Shri M.M. Ranjan, learned senior counsel argued that Rule 16 (10) (ii) of the Rules of 1958 provides for sending the notice under sub-clause (i) and representation to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for its advice. Such notice under clause (i) was lacking in findings of disciplinary authority and proposal of penalty and consequently, petitioner's right to make representation was seriously prejudiced. Advice of the RPSC is vitiated thus causing prejudice to the petitioner. In fact, the RPSC did not advise, it simply sent its concurrence to the penalty imposed. 4. It is argued that the disciplinary authority has recorded its finding and sent the proposal of penalty to the RPSC without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the RPSC also mechanically concurred with the penalty without application of mind. The action of the respondents is therefore violative of principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority has thus prejudiced the defence of the petitioner thereby, depriving petitioner to submit representation. It has recorded the finding of guilt and awarded penalty to the petitioner without due consideration of the material on record. It is argued that disciplinary authority has not appreciated that there was no eye witness to the demand or payment of bribe. The independent eye witnesses have neither proved any demand of bribe nor payment thereof. Moolchand Chhablani, brother of deceased Dharam Das @Dharmu Chhablani (PW2), Bhanwarlal Kankra (PW3) and Umesh Kumar Maheshwari @Atul Kumar Maheshwari (PW9) could not stand to the scrutiny of cross-examination. Umesh Kumar Maheshwari @Atul Kumar Maheshwari (PW9) being a history sheeter offender and politically influential person in touch with the complainant had the motive of supporting false implication of a doctor on report of postmortem. It is he, who instigated the complainant in this case, otherwise the complainant did not wish to pursue the matter relating to death of his brother and therefore was not at all interested in the way the postmortem is carried out. It was argued that PW1, the Constable, Goverdhan Lal (PW5), the sweeper and Manniram Yadav Police Constable (PW8) did not at all support the allegation against petitioner. Jeevatram (PW6), Narumal (PW7) and Manniram Yadav Police Constable (PW8) are not eye-witnesses. It was argued that PW1, the Constable, Goverdhan Lal (PW5), the sweeper and Manniram Yadav Police Constable (PW8) did not at all support the allegation against petitioner. Jeevatram (PW6), Narumal (PW7) and Manniram Yadav Police Constable (PW8) are not eye-witnesses. In fact, first three of these witnesses are the motbir witnesses of the panchnama. They are speaking truth. Govind Narayan, Additional Superintendent of Police Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau Ajmer (PW10), was investigation officer of the criminal case and therefore his opinion is wholly irrelevant. Learned senior counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in AIR 1971 SC 150 (Head Note-A) and S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India : AIR 1990 SC 1984 . Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that penalty of removal is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charge and therefore this court may in its discretion decide to substitute it by any other penalty than dismissal from service or compulsory retirement. 5. Shri Dharmendra Pareek, learned Additional Government Counsel for State has opposed the writ petition and argued that petitioner demanded bribe, which fact has been proved by the investigating agency as also the enquiry officer. The negative final report had to be given in the circumstances when Government did not sanction but as far as investigation agency is concerned, it found a prima-facie case worth filing charge sheet and it requested the Government to grant sanction to prosecute him. Similarly, the enquiry officer has also found the charges proved against petitioner. Suggestion that Atul Maheshwari (PW9) approached the petitioner before postmortem conducted is wrong. In fact, Atul Maheshwari fully supported the complainant and remained unshaken during the course of cross examination. He proved that he reached after postmortem and then came to learn about illegal demand of bribe by the petitioner. It is argued that petitioner for the first time now before this court is alleging that Atul Maheshwari was a Congress leader or a history sheeter. But he failed to produce any proof of the same before the enquiry officer. Petitioner has tried to mislead this Court by narrating wrong facts. It was argued that neither preliminary enquiry report nor statement recorded therein were relied by the enquiry officer and therefore their non supply to the petitioner would not prejudice case of the petitioner. But he failed to produce any proof of the same before the enquiry officer. Petitioner has tried to mislead this Court by narrating wrong facts. It was argued that neither preliminary enquiry report nor statement recorded therein were relied by the enquiry officer and therefore their non supply to the petitioner would not prejudice case of the petitioner. The demand and acceptance of bribe for conducting the postmortem and the quarrel at the public place has been proved against petitioner. Even if Government declined to grant sanction, yet it is competent to hold disciplinary enquiry and therefore the impugned order has rightly been passed. Not only the petitioner participated in the enquiry but also during cross examination of all the prosecution witnesses and he was also given liberty to produce his evidence and defend himself. Principles of natural justice were therefore fully complied with. The preliminary enquiry is held for forming a prima-facie opinion as to the necessity of proceeding in a disciplinary enquiry. Impugned order has not been passed on the basis of preliminary enquiry report and therefore its non supply to the petitioner has not prejudiced the case of the petitioner. Whatever documents were demanded by the petitioner were supplied to him except the preliminary enquiry report and statement recorded during the preliminary enquiry. There was no substance in the representation submitted by the petitioner against the enquiry report and therefore it was rightly not accepted. It is argued that in the CCA Rules, there is no provision for giving any hearing at the time of imposing final penalty. Copy of the enquiry report was supplied along with communication to the petitioner calling upon him to file representation there-against. That was sufficient compliance. It was also argued that no notice of penalty was given to the petitioner. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. At the outset, it may be clarified that where acceptance of final report by the court given by the ACB against petitioner may not be an impediment for the disciplinary authority to proceed in departmental enquiry and pass order of penalty. Besides, in the present case, final report was accepted not because police did not find any prima-facie case against petitioner but it was owing to refusal by the Government to grant sanction of prosecution. Besides, in the present case, final report was accepted not because police did not find any prima-facie case against petitioner but it was owing to refusal by the Government to grant sanction of prosecution. The ACB had originally proposed to file charge sheet against petitioner. Enquiry officer has also found the charges proved against petitioner. The enquiry officer in his enquiry report has proved the charges and therefore it is to be seen whether evidence against him was such that proves charges against petitioner. It was Moolchand Chhablani (PW2), brother of the deceased Dharam Das @Dharmu Chhablani in statement stated before the enquiry officer that when the dead body of his brother was sent to the mortuary, which was lying for about 2-1/2 hours and no doctor was available to conduct the postmortem thereof when petitioner came there, he called close relative of the deceased. This witness appeared before him and told that he was brother of the deceased; the petitioner took him inside the mortuary and asked whether he would or not want the postmortem to be conducted. When this witness answered in affirmative, petitioner demanded from him Rs. 500/- as fee. He stated that he had only Rs. 200/- and therefore he came out of the mortuary and enquired from his relative whether they could lend him some money because petitioner was demanding Rs. 500/- as fee. He has also alleged that petitioner threatened that if he did not pay his fee, he would conduct the postmortem in such a way that this witness will have to carry the dead body of the deceased tied with a bed-sheet. This witness borrowed money of Rs. 100/- from Bhanwarlal Kankra and requested him to go inside the mortuary and give this amount of Rs. 300/- to the petitioner as he was not in a fit state of mind being under shock. Even as they were talking about all this, Atul Maheshwari came there and enquired why the delay is taking place in postmortem. It was at that stage he (Atul Maheshwari) was informed about illegal demand by the petitioner. Atul Maheshwari talked to the petitioner and altercation took place between them. In fact, the doctor at that stage had already conducted the postmortem and told that they can now take the dead body. Bhanwarlal Kankra (PW3) has also corroborated the statement of Moolchand Chhablani (PW2). Atul Maheshwari talked to the petitioner and altercation took place between them. In fact, the doctor at that stage had already conducted the postmortem and told that they can now take the dead body. Bhanwarlal Kankra (PW3) has also corroborated the statement of Moolchand Chhablani (PW2). In fact, he proved that Moolchand Chhablani (PW2) was so much perturbed that he gave Rs. 200/- to this Bhanwarlal Kankra and asked him that he may settle the matter for Rs. 300/- with the petitioner saying that he (PW2) would try to arrange for remaining Rs. 200/-. Bhanwarlal Kankra then went inside the mortuary and handed over Rs. 300/- to the petitioner and promised that they would arrange Rs. 200/- more. Moolchand Chhablani (PW2) and Bhanwarlal Kankra (PW3) have both stated in their affidavit to the same effect to the Anti Corruption Bureau. 8. Narayan Das (PW4) was one of the signatory of the panchnama. He has stated that when he heard a noise outside the mortuary, he went there and heard that petitioner was demanding Rs. 500/- from the relatives of the deceased and that Bhanwarlal Kankra had given him Rs. 300/- and the dispute was still persistently for Rs. 200/-. Narayan Das (PW4) has also proved the altercation that took place between petitioner and Atul Maheshwari. Narayan Das (PW4) in cross-examination has further stated that when he reached the mortuary, he demanded explanation from petitioner as to under what authority he demanded Rs. 500/- for conducting postmortem. Goverdhan Lal (PW5), Sweeper posted in the hospital has proved that postmortem of the dead body of deceased-Dharam Das @Dharmu Chhablani was conducted by the petitioner on 14/8/1988 and that time this witness was posted in the mortuary. He also proved that altercation took place between petitioner and relatives of deceased. Jeevatram (PW6) was also a witness of the panchnama. He stated that he heard Moolchand Chhablani (PW2), Bhanwarlal Kankra (PW3) and Atul Maheshwari (PW9) talking that petitioner has taken a sum of Rs. 300/- from the complainant and was asking for Rs. 200/- more. Narumal (PW7) has also corroborated the statement of Moolchand Chhablani (PW2) and other witnesses. He has stated that when he was busy preparing proceedings of the panchnama, he heard quarrel outside the mortuary and came to know that petitioner had received Rs. 300/- through Bhanwarlal for conducting the postmortem and was demanding Rs. 200/- more. 200/- more. Narumal (PW7) has also corroborated the statement of Moolchand Chhablani (PW2) and other witnesses. He has stated that when he was busy preparing proceedings of the panchnama, he heard quarrel outside the mortuary and came to know that petitioner had received Rs. 300/- through Bhanwarlal for conducting the postmortem and was demanding Rs. 200/- more. Atul Maheshwari (PW9) has also corroborated the statement of Moolchand Chhablani (PW2) and Bhanwarlal Kankra (PW3). He stated that when he learnt about the death of Dharam Das @Dharmu Chhablani, he immediately went to the hospital and was informed that dead body has been taken to mortuary for postmortem. When he went, he found many people assembled there. Moolchand Chhablani was crying, Bhanwarlal Kankra, who was standing by his side was consoling him. When he asked why the delay is taking place in the postmortem, Moolchand Chhablani told him that Dr.Bhajan Lal Bhatia, the petitioner was demanding Rs. 500/- but he has only Rs. 200/- and had borrowed Rs. 100/- from Bhanwarlal Kankra but the petitioner was demanding Rs. 200/- more. Govind Narayan (PW10), Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau has proved the registration of criminal case against petitioner and the facts about investigation. 9. The enquiry officer on the basis of all this overwhelming evidence has found the charges proved against petitioner. As regards the demand of copy of the preliminary enquiry report and the statement recorded therein, suffice it so say that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by mere reason of non-supply of the documents because perusal of the enquiry report clearly shows that none of these documents were relied upon by the enquiry officer to return the finding of guilt against petitioner. In fact, he recorded the statements during the departmental proceedings and petitioner had the opportunity to cross-examine all these witnesses. Even if application of the petitioner demanding copies of the documents are looked into, it is evident that petitioner in the first letter dated 10/4/1997, which in fact is reply to the charge sheet served upon him, has merely denied the charges and requested that departmental enquiry may be expedited. Thereafter, when the enquiry report was supplied to him for his representation with letter dated 8/11/1995, petitioner by his letter dated 29/11/1995 demanded copies of the preliminary enquiry report and the statements recorded therein. Thereafter, when the enquiry report was supplied to him for his representation with letter dated 8/11/1995, petitioner by his letter dated 29/11/1995 demanded copies of the preliminary enquiry report and the statements recorded therein. Respondents vide their letter dated 23/1/1996 informed that at that state, there was no procedure for supply of the copy of the preliminary enquiry report or the statements of the witnesses recorded therein or other documents. They conveyed to him that he should submit his representation against the enquiry report. Petitioner then submitted detailed representation on 2/2/1996. Even in clause (j) of this representation, petitioner has stated that despite his written request, he was not supplied with the demanded documents but no particulars of documents have been given. Petitioner has rather in this representation made his submission with regard to non-supply of the preliminary enquiry report at more than one places, which indicates that he was in the know of the contents of the preliminary enquiry report. It has not been proved by the petitioner whether he submitted any other application to the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority demanding specific document except what has been discussed above. In fact, when the charge sheet was served upon him, he submitted a very cryptic reply in six lines in which reply also, he did not demand any document. Only application, which he produced on record is his representation to the disciplinary authority after the enquiry report was supplied and this representation has been submitted on 2/2/1996. Petitioner has thus failed to prove as to when he demanded specific documents during currency of the departmental proceedings, what was relevance of documents and in what way he has been prejudiced on account of non-supply of the documents. 10. Coming now to the argument that the disciplinary authority has not applied its mind to the explanation of the petitioner and while passing the order of penalty, he has not referred the testimony of the witnesses particularly their cross examination part and has not considered the arguments of the petitioner contained in his representation, I find that the disciplinary authority has in the order of penalty Ann.10 concurred with the opinion of the enquiry officer. Even then, it has in great details referred to the representation submitted by the petitioner against the enquiry report. Even then, it has in great details referred to the representation submitted by the petitioner against the enquiry report. Since this is an order passed in affirmation and conformity with the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority was not required to deal with each statement in details. Perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the disciplinary authority has taken note of the fact that Moolchand Chhablani (PW2), Bhanwarlal Kankra (PW3), Narayan Das (PW4), Jeevatram (PW6), Narumal (PW7) and Atul Maheshwari (PW9) have fully supported the complaint against petitioner. These are those witnesses, who have proved the allegation against petitioner. This Court is not inclined to believe that the disciplinary authority did not apply its mind to the report and the material on record. 11. Lastly coming to the consolidation argument on placing reliance upon Rule 16 (10) (ii) of the Rules of 1958 regarding consultation with the RPSC, the disciplinary authority in the last page of the order has taken note of the fact that looking to the gravity of the charge, the Government has taken a decision to remove the petitioner from service and the matter was sent to the RPSC for its opinion on 1/10/1996. RPSC vide its letter dated 10/12/1996 concurred with the opinion of the Government. The requirement of consultation was thus satisfied. None of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is applicable to the facts of the present case, being distinguishable on facts as well as law. 12. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******