JUDGMENT : Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J. 1. This writ petition is filed for quashing the proceedings pursuant to the letter dated 06.12.2021 as also the charge-sheet dated 24.03.2020 with further prayer to restrain the respondents from initiating any enquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 24.03.2020. 2. The facts in brief, as emerge from the writ petition, are that when the petitioner was posted as Constable in CID (I.B.) in Bharatpur Zone, a criminal case was registered against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Section 384 IPC. After conducting a preliminary enquiry, he was served upon with a charge-sheet dated 24.03.2020 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity "the Rules of 1958") containing two charges. The Enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry, vide report dated 15.11.2021 found both the charges to be proved. Vide letter dated 06.12.2021, the petitioner was supplied with a copy of the enquiry report and was requested to submit his written explanation, if any, within fifteen days. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the charge-sheet dated 24.03.2020 and the FIR lodged against him are based on the same set of facts, the charge-sheet deserves to be quashed. He further submitted that the show cause notice dated 06.12.2021 reflects predetermined mind of the disciplinary authority to punish him as it records his satisfaction with the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry officer. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed. Learned counsel relied upon judgment of this Court dated 05.04.2019 in case of Jagveer Singh v. Union of India & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No. 11459/2009 as also an interim order dated 20.11.2011 of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12658/2021, Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., in support of his submissions. 4. Heard learned counsel and perused the record. 5. The petitioner was served upon with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 vide memorandum dated 24.03.2020. Vide order dated 02.09.2020, Enquiry officer was appointed. A perusal of the record reveals that vide letter dated even, the petitioner was requested to nominate his defence nominee whereupon, vide his letter dated 10.10.2020, the petitioner requested for appointment of Mr. Madan Pal Singh, Sub-Inspector (Retd.) as his defence nominee. Vide order dated 02.09.2020, Enquiry officer was appointed. A perusal of the record reveals that vide letter dated even, the petitioner was requested to nominate his defence nominee whereupon, vide his letter dated 10.10.2020, the petitioner requested for appointment of Mr. Madan Pal Singh, Sub-Inspector (Retd.) as his defence nominee. Thereafter, he participated in the enquiry till its conclusion by the Enquiry officer without any murmur of protest. Although, in para 10 of the writ petition, it has been averred that the petitioner submitted an application to stay the proceedings as the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet were same as mentioned in the FIR; but, neither a copy of any such application has been placed on record nor, it is mentioned as to when and to whom such application was moved. Even otherwise also, the material on record does not reveal that before participating in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner raised any such objection as to its maintainability; rather, his written arguments dated 03.11.2021 submitted under Rule 16(7) of the Rules of 1958, reveal that after conclusion of the enquiry, his objection was that departmental enquiry was hit by provisions contained in Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India and not as contended herein. 6. Thus, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry initiated vide charge-sheet dated 24.03.2020 without raising any objection as to its maintainability qua pendency of a criminal case based on similar allegations and hence, it is too late for him to assail the charge-sheet after conclusion of the enquiry by the Enquiry officer after issuance of a show cause notice by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all his objections/submissions against the enquiry report including maintainability of the charge-sheet and the disciplinary authority is enjoined upon to consider all such objections/submissions made by the petitioner including his objection as to maintainability/continuation of the departmental proceedings on the premise that he is facing a criminal case on the same set of allegations. 7. Since, the disciplinary authority is yet to take a decision in the matter, this Court does not deem it just and proper to enter into merits of the case especially when the petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings without raising any objection as to its maintainability at the appropriate stage. 8. 7. Since, the disciplinary authority is yet to take a decision in the matter, this Court does not deem it just and proper to enter into merits of the case especially when the petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings without raising any objection as to its maintainability at the appropriate stage. 8. This Court has, in case of Mohan Lal Khatu v. UTI Asset Management Company Limited & Ors., held vide its order dated 28.08.2019 as under:- "18. Admittedly, in the present case the petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings before the inquiry officer who submitted his report which was supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner responded to the same and, thereafter, an opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to make a representation on the proposed penalty to be imposed on him. 26. So far as the feeble attempt made by learned counsel for the petitioner questioning the validity of the charge-sheet is concerned, the stage of such challenge is already over, inasmuch as, the inquiry based on the charges has already been held and inquiry report already submitted. The issues sought to be raised by the petitioner were/are open for the petitioner to be raised before the authorities/appellate authority, the same cannot be made subject matter of the present writ petition." 9. A Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has, vide its order dated 09.12.2015 in case of V. Narayana v. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors., held as under:- "15. In the present case admittedly, the petitioner has participated in the enquiry proceedings and he has not raised any finger in the enquiry proceedings and ultimately, the enquiry report is submitted holding that the charges are proved. The report was accepted by the Upalokayukta and a recommendation was made to the Disciplinary Authority. Now the Disciplinary Authority has issued a final notice and ultimately, it is for the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision in accordance with law. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the facts of the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for appellant has no application to the present case. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly the writ petition is liable to be dismissed." 10. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the facts of the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for appellant has no application to the present case. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly the writ petition is liable to be dismissed." 10. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has, vide its order dated 25.11.2020 in case of Abhishek Mukherjee v. the Board of Trustees & Ors., held as under:- "29. Moreover, the respondents are justified in arguing that a fact-finding exercise is best left with the enquiry officer or the disciplinary committee looking into the matter and is not appropriate for the writ court to delve into. The petitioner, in the present case, has participated full-fledged by replying to the show-cause notice and a hearing date has been given for the petitioner to ventilate all his objections to the enquiry and allegations from which the same arises. As such, it would be rather premature, as also held by a coordinate bench in Arup Basu Chowdhury (supra), to decide a challenge to the enquiry report without waiting for the disciplinary authority to assess the grounds that may be urged against the findings rendered against the petitioner." 11. The judgment/order relied upon by the petitioner are of no help to him. 12. In case of Jagveer Singh (supra), this court stayed the proceedings in the departmental enquiry in view of the pendency of criminal trial with similar allegations as contained in the charge-sheet with the observation that if the criminal case is not concluded within one year, departmental enquiry would proceed. However, in the present case, as already observed, the Enquiry officer has already submitted his report and the disciplinary authority is to take a final call in the matter. Therefore, the judgment is of no help to the petitioner. 13. The order dated 20.11.2011 in case of Narendra Singh (supra), being an interim order, is also of no assistance to him. 14. The upshot of the aforesaid analysis is that first contention of the learned counsel does not merit acceptance. 15. Therefore, the judgment is of no help to the petitioner. 13. The order dated 20.11.2011 in case of Narendra Singh (supra), being an interim order, is also of no assistance to him. 14. The upshot of the aforesaid analysis is that first contention of the learned counsel does not merit acceptance. 15. So far as second contention of the learned counsel is concerned, although, the show cause notice dated 06.12.2021 reflects a prima-facie observation of the disciplinary authority as to his agreement, he agreed with the conclusion grown therein but, it is a prima-facie satisfaction only and this Court is not satisfied that he would sit with a close or predetermined mind while considering the representation to be filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice as the learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that he has already moved an application seeking extension of time for submitting his response. The disciplinary authority is obliged to consider the material on record including the explanation/representation submitted by the delinquent against the enquiry report before taking a final decision in the matter. 16. A Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has, vide its order dated 22.03.2011 in case of Subhash Chandra Mukherjee v. Chairman, held as under:- "4. It is submitted that the disciplinary authority before going through the defence and the show cause had made up his mind to accept the enquiry report. He further submitted that the appellant sought several documents mentioned in Annexure P/9, out of which only 9 documents were supplied. On a query-being asked as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner/appellant, he referred to the Banks instructions nos. 35, 36 and 37 copies of which, it is alleged, were not given to the petitioner in spite of repeated requests. 5. We are not impressed by the submissions of the appellant's counsel for the reason that apparently the observation of the Disciplinary authority that he is in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Authority, was not a final opinion expressed by him but only indicated that he was prima facie, satisfied with the report and therefore, called upon the appellant to show cause. Thus, the observation of the respondents cannot be held to be a final opinion and it was always open to the disciplinary authority to change his view after going through the show cause filed by the appellant. Thus, the observation of the respondents cannot be held to be a final opinion and it was always open to the disciplinary authority to change his view after going through the show cause filed by the appellant. We do not find any merits in this submission." 17. However to obviate any apprehension in the mind of the petitioner and in the interest of justice, this Court directs the disciplinary authority to consider objectively the entire material on record including the representation/explanation, if any, furnished by the petitioner against the enquiry report before taking a final decision in the matter without being influenced by his observation in the show cause notice dated 06.12.2021. 18. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of. 19. Pending application stands disposed of accordingly.