JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, the original petitioner (hereinafter referred as 'delinquent'), who expired during pendency of the writ petition, had preferred this writ petition against the order of punishment of dismissal from service. After death of the delinquent, his wife has been impleaded in his place as his legal representative and apart from the prayers made in the original writ petition, further prayer has been made for directing the Government of Rajasthan and its functionaries to release family pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity and other benefits and also for considering her case for compassionate appointment under the relevant Rules. 2. In the aforesaid background, the writ petition was heard at length. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the delinquent was suffering from comprehensive Renal Failure when the departmental enquiry was initiated and a criminal case was also registered against him with regard to the allegations as set up in the memorandum of charges dated 19/12/1998. The delinquent was also suspended in the said regard and remained under suspension from 18/06/1998 upto 20/03/1999 when he was reinstated subject to enquiry. A supplementary charge sheet was also served upon the delinquent on 25/06/1999 whereafter he was again suspended vide order dated 15/12/1999. He preferred SB Civil Writ Petition No. 92/2000 assailing the second suspension order which was stayed. So far as the enquiry proceedings initiated vide aforesaid memorandum are concerned, learned counsel informs that the enquiry officers were changed from one after another by the disciplinary authority and as many as five different enquiry officers were appointed from time to time for conducting enquiry. It is his submission that the enquiry was completed and enquiry report was submitted by one Dr. V.S. Chaudhary before whom the delinquent had submitted written submissions as well as evidence. The delinquent learnt that the enquiry report has been filed by the enquiry officer and therefore, he demanded copy of the same but it was not made available to him and instead, exercising powers under Rule 16(9) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as 'CCA Rules, 1957'), a de-novo enquiry was directed to be conducted afresh by appointed a new inquiry officer namely; Dr. R.L. Solanki to conduct fresh enquiry vide order dated 18/07/2001. R.L. Solanki to conduct fresh enquiry vide order dated 18/07/2001. In the order, it was stated that enquiry report submitted by the earlier enquiry officer was incomplete and not in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press his submissions with regard to the aspect relating to de-novo enquiry. However, he states that after the new enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry afresh, the concerned new enquiry officer was required to call the delinquent for hearing and he was required to independently conduct the enquiry and give his own findings. It is his submission that instead thereof, the delinquent was only asked by the enquiry officer to submit any additional evidence which the delinquent may like to produce and in this regard, the delinquent was asked to be present before the enquiry officer on 28/12/2001 at 11.00 am vide letter dated 13/12/2001. However, instead of awaiting the delinquent's personal presence on 28/12/2001, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 19/12/2001 itself and copy of the said enquiry report was served upon the petitioner vide covering letter dated 27/12/2001 whereafter it was informed that the authorities have already taken a decision to remove the delinquent from service on the basis of the enquiry report. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the delinquent was suffering from renal failure and had been sent to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi for treatment by the respondents themselves vide their letter dated 06/11/2001 and he was undergoing treatment and the delinquent was admittedly undergoing treatment in December, 2001 at All India Institute of Medical Sciences and as has come on record from the inquest report, the letter of 19/12/2001 of the delinquent having not to say anything further was got received from the delinquent's brother Kaushal Sharma by the enquiry officer. The statement of the enquiry officer has been placed on record. 6. It is submitted that the delinquent was already sanctioned leave by the respondents upto 22/01/2002 and he had submitted his objections relating to the enquiry report on 23/01/2002 and thereafter he also challenged the show cause notice dated 27/12/2001 by filing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 664/2002 which was initially stayed by the High Court by passing an order on 04/02/2002. It is his submission that on coming to know about the interim order passed by the High Court on 04/02/2002, the respondents proceeded to pass an ante-dated order of 22/01/2002 dismissing the delinquent from service resulting into the delinquent's writ petition being rendered infructuous. The High Court vide order dated 08/04/2002 granted liberty to the delinquent to file fresh writ petition assailing the order dated 22/01/2002. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the fact that the impugned order of termination is ante-dated, can be inferred also from the fact that the delinquent has received salary for the month of February, 2002 and was treated to be in service upto February, 2002 and thus there was no occasion to give him salary if he had already been dismissed from service in January, 2002. Learned counsel submits that the delinquent thus has been subjected to injustice and it is his submission that the action was on account of mala fide attitude of the respondent No. 3 who was holding the post of respondent No. 2. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 3 has not filed any affidavit nor he has chosen to file reply to the allegations of malice as alleged by the delinquent. The fact of the respondent No. 3 having changed enquiry officers from time to time with the sole purpose to see that the delinquent is held guilty by a particular enquiry officer and the manner in which the respondent No. 3 has guided the enquiry officer by writing letter to him to prepare enquiry report after taking guidance from the prosecution shows apparent malice on his part. It is his submission that on account of serious irregularities committed by the enquiry officer and the malicious manner of functioning of respondent No. 3 as respondent No. 2, the punishment of dismissal was wholly unwarranted and unjustified. Learned counsel has also taken this Court to the letter dt. 19/12/2001 submitted by the enquiry officer wherein he mentions that he has completed the formalities of preparation of the enquiry report. Learned counsel has also taken this Court to the letter dt. 19/12/2001 submitted by the enquiry officer wherein he mentions that he has completed the formalities of preparation of the enquiry report. Learned counsel also submits that on account of wrongful manner of preparation of the enquiry report by just transplanting the earlier enquiry report prepared by the enquiry officer and adding certain few words in the same by the enquiry officer, the enquiry report submitted by him was clearly vitiated in law and is required to be set aside. 8. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that the charges against the delinquent were of grave nature and as the charges have been proved, the punishment ought not be interfered with. Learned counsel submits that ample opportunity was given to the delinquent to contest and put up his defence. The new enquiry officer, who was appointed, had also asked the delinquent to submit any new evidence other than what had already been on record which the delinquent refused by submitting his letter on 19/12/2001. Once the delinquent himself has refused to further place any document before the enquiry officer, the new enquiry officer was not required to do anything further but to reiterate the earlier enquiry report and there can be no examination to the action of the concerned enquiry officer. Relying upon the said report, the delinquent has been punished and learned counsel further submits that the allegations of mala fide have not been able to be proved. 9. This Court finds that Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 lays down a procedure for conducting an enquiry against a delinquent against whom there are charges for which there is a likelihood of imposing of major penalty. As per Rule 16(9) of the CCA Rules, 1958, the disciplinary authority, while considering the report submitted to it by the enquiry officer, for just and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, remand the case for further/de-no enquiry in case it has reason to believe that the enquiry already conducted has been laconic in some respect or the other. 10. This Court finds that the disciplinary authority instead of remanding the enquiry submitted by the enquiry officer, has proceeded to hold the said enquiry report as not in accordance with law and appointed a new enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry afresh. 10. This Court finds that the disciplinary authority instead of remanding the enquiry submitted by the enquiry officer, has proceeded to hold the said enquiry report as not in accordance with law and appointed a new enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry afresh. Since no argument on this aspect was advanced, this Court refrains from making any further observation on the said aspect. 11. The new enquiry officer, who was appointed to conduct enquiry afresh vide order dated 18/07/2001, has not conducted enquiry afresh at all and it appears that the new enquiry officer prepared a report and submitted it to the disciplinary authority on the basis of the earlier record vide his letter dated 10/08/2001. However, the respondent No. 2 again guided the enquiry officer Mr. R.L. Solanki to submit enquiry report afresh in terms of CCA Rules, 1958 vide his letters dated 31/10/2001 and 13/12/2001 whereafter the enquiry officer as per guidance asked the delinquent to submit any further document or further arguments and present himself before the enquiry officer on 28/12/2001 but on 19/12/2001 itself the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report holding the delinquent guilty of the charges without giving hearing to the delinquent. 12. Moreover, it is noticed that the department had granted leave to the delinquent for treatment relating to renal failure and he was under dialysis at All India Institute of Medical Sciences whereafter he submitted his objections relating to the enquiry report on 23/01/2002 but before considering the said objections, the punishment of dismissal from service was awarded on 22/01/2002. 13. Thus, this Court is satisfied that there has been a lacunae on the part of the authorities in conducting enquiry in a fair and proper manner. The new enquiry officer, who was appointed for conducting enquiry afresh, could not have relied upon the earlier enquiry report for holding the delinquent guilty since earlier enquiry report was found to be incomplete and not in accordance with law and he was supposed to take additional evidence for completing it. Apparently, the delinquent was exonerated by the earlier enquiry officer on the basis of the same material. Although the earlier enquiry officer had not been produced, the respondents have also not denied in their reply about the specific averments made by the delinquent regarding his being exonerated by the earlier enquiry officer Dr. V.S. Chaudhary. 14. Apparently, the delinquent was exonerated by the earlier enquiry officer on the basis of the same material. Although the earlier enquiry officer had not been produced, the respondents have also not denied in their reply about the specific averments made by the delinquent regarding his being exonerated by the earlier enquiry officer Dr. V.S. Chaudhary. 14. In view of above, this Court is satisfied that the enquiry proceedings conducted as against the delinquent were wholly arbitrary, unjustified and violative of the principles laid down herein above. There has been a complete eye-wash in conducting the enquiry proceedings. This Court finds that the respondent No. 3, who was impleaded as a party to the writ petition, despite alleging malice against him, has not even bothered to file reply or any affidavit and thus, the allegations levelled against respondent No. 3 who was holding the post of respondent No. 2 stand unanswered. The petitioner was drawing salary for the month of February, 2002 and the respondents have come out with an order of dismissal dated 22/01/2002. This aspect has also remained unexplained. The respondents have also not given out reasons either in the reply or in the order as to why the new enquiry officer who was appointed, did not conduct enquiry after the disciplinary authority found the earlier inquiry to be incomplete. The natural corollary from above facts shows that there was some miss. However, without deliberating further on the said aspect, suffice it to note that the delinquent has not been given a fair opportunity to contest his case and put up his defence. In view thereof, the order of dismissal dated 22/01/2002 passed by the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside. 15. In the case of Allahabad Bank and others Vs. Krishna Narayan Tiwari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 , the Apex Court observed as under:- "8. There is no quarrel with the proposition that in cases where the High Court finds the enquiry to be deficient either procedurally or otherwise the proper course always is to remand the matter back to the concerned authority to redo the same afresh. That course could have been followed even in the present case. The matter could be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority or to the Enquiry Officer for a proper enquiry and a fresh report and order. That course could have been followed even in the present case. The matter could be remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority or to the Enquiry Officer for a proper enquiry and a fresh report and order. But that course may not have been the only course open in a given situation. There may be situations where because of a long time lag or such other supervening circumstances the writ court considers it unfair, harsh or otherwise unnecessary to direct a fresh enquiry or fresh order by the competent authority. That is precisely what the High Court has done in the case at hand." 16. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court further held as under:- "11. We, therefore, allow this appeal but only in part and to the extent that while orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority shall stand quashed, and the respondent entitled to continuity of service till the date of his superannuation with all service benefits on that basis, he shall be entitled to only 50% of the salary for the period between the date of his removal from service till the date of superannuation. Retiral benefits shall also be released in his favour. The order passed by the High Court shall, to the extent indicated above, stand modified. The parties shall bear their own costs." 17. As the delinquent has expired during pendency of the writ petition, no purpose would be served in remanding the matter back to the authorities for conducting enquiry afresh. 18. However, while taking into consideration that the delinquent has already expired and proceedings cannot be further continued afresh, it is directed that 50% salary from the date of dismissal to the date of death shall be payable. However, full terminal benefits on the deemed last pay drawn (full salary) shall be payable to the wife of the delinquent and death-cum-retirement gratuity shall also be paid. 19. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed. The order of punishment impugned dated 22/01/2002 passed by the respondents dismissing the delinquent from service is quashed & set aside. However, full terminal benefits on the deemed last pay drawn (full salary) shall be payable to the wife of the delinquent and death-cum-retirement gratuity shall also be paid. 19. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed. The order of punishment impugned dated 22/01/2002 passed by the respondents dismissing the delinquent from service is quashed & set aside. The respondents are directed to pay 50% salary from the date of dismissal to the date of death of the delinquent to her wife and further pay full terminal benefits on the deemed last pay drawn (full salary) to the wife of the delinquent and death-cum-retirement gratuity shall also be paid to her including medical and insurance claims etc. which were available to her. Her case shall also be considered for grant of compassionate appointment and family pension be released to her as per Rajasthan Service Rules. The compliance of this order be made by the respondents within two months of receipt of certified copy of this order in their office. No costs.