ORDER : 1. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed by the respondent-corporation in the capacity of a driver vide order dated 17.04.1991. The petitioner was initially engaged on contractual basis however, vide order dated 18.02.2006, services of the petitioner were regularised w.e.f. 10.01.2006. On 29.04.2007, the bus No. RJ-22-P-1137, driven by the petitioner from Jodhpur to Jaisalmer, on its way, met with an accident near Barli resulting in death of three persons riding on a motorcycle. A charge-sheet dated 16.05.2007, was served upon the petitioner, alleging inter-alia that due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, the bus met with an accident causing the death of three persons. Further, it was alleged that due to petitioner’s negligence, the bus had been seized by the police resulting in non-completion of journey, thereby causing financial loss and damage to reputation of the respondent-corporation. The charge-sheet dated 16.05.2007 lastly stated that proceedings will mandatorily be conducted as per the provisions of Rajasthan State Transport Workers’ Standing Orders, 1965 (hereinafter as ‘Standing Orders of 1965’). 2. The petitioner replied to the charge sheet dated 16.05.2007 vide letter dated 04.06.2007 denying the charges levelled against him. In the reply, it was stated that the accident occurred when the petitioner pursuing to overtake a tractor, asked for side and in the process, a motorcycle with three passengers also trying to overtake the same tractor, suddenly came to the left side of the road resulting in collision with the bumper of the bus of the respondent-corporation. It was further stated that the petitioner in order to prevent the collision, drove to the right side of the road but to no avail as motorcycle-rider rode in violation of traffic rules. 3. The disciplinary authority dissatisfied with the petitioner’s reply appointed one Shri J.P. Sharma on 06.06.2007 as enquiry officer. An enquiry was conducted the enquiry officer as per the procedure laid down in the Standing Orders of 1965. The enquiry officer after thoroughly going through the documents and examining the witnesses, prepared the enquiry whereby the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet dated 16.05.2007 were found not to be proved. However, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 12.11.2007 appointed one Shri O.P. Verma (hereinafter referred to as ‘second enquiry officer’) as new enquiry officer for conducting inquiry afresh. However, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 12.11.2007 appointed one Shri O.P. Verma (hereinafter referred to as ‘second enquiry officer’) as new enquiry officer for conducting inquiry afresh. Thereupon, second enquiry officer submitted enquiry report (hereinafter referred to as ‘subsequent enquiry report’) dated 17.12.2007 holding the charges levelled in the charge sheet 16.05.2007 to be proved as against the petitioner. The findings arrived at by the second enquiry officer in subsequent enquiry report were accepted by the disciplinary authority which in turn vide office order dated 30.09.2009 imposed punishment of termination upon the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against order dated 30.09.2009 before Executive Director, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2010, passed by the appellate-authority. Aggrieved by order dated 30.09.2009 as affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority vide order dated 29.11.2010, present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that immediately after the unfortunate accident which transpired on 29.04.2007, one Shri Balkishan, J.E.N. working in respondent-corporation, was sent to the accident site for enquiring and preparing a report of the incident. Shri Balkishan during cross examination, admitted that the motorcycle overtook from wrong side. It was also admitted that the petitioner is partially responsible for the accident. Counsel further submitted that all the witnesses, examined by the enquiry officer stood the test of cross examination stating that the bus was not driven in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the unfortunate accident. Counsel further submitted that the first enquiry officer after considering the evidence placed on record and the documents exhibited before him through a reasoned report had found the charges levelled against the to be not proved. 5. Counsel vehemently submitted that second enquiry officer prepared inquiry report in a perfunctory manner without properly considering the material placed on record holding the charged against the petitioner as proved. Further, it was argued that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the material placed before it and imposed penalty of termination upon the petitioner vide order dated 30.09.2007. Counsel emphatically submitted that the appellate authority vide order dated 29.11.2010, dismissed the appeal filed against termination order dated 30.09.2007 in a cursory manner without appreciating the grounds raised by the petitioner. Further, it was argued that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the material placed before it and imposed penalty of termination upon the petitioner vide order dated 30.09.2007. Counsel emphatically submitted that the appellate authority vide order dated 29.11.2010, dismissed the appeal filed against termination order dated 30.09.2007 in a cursory manner without appreciating the grounds raised by the petitioner. Counsel submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner at PS Accident (West) Jodhpur for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC in relation to the accident. 6. Counsel urged that the competent criminal court after conducting trial vide order dated 16.11.2009 had acquitted the petitioner of the charges levelled in the FIR therefore, termination order dated 30.09.2009 passed by disciplinary authority and order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the appellate authority may be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that enquiry was conducted against the petitioner pursuant to charge sheet dated 16.05.2007 complying with the provisions of Standing Order of 1965 in letter and spirit. Counsel further submitted that disciplinary authority was well within its domain to order re-enquiry by appointing second enquiry officer since the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer were found not to be in consonance with the material produced during departmental enquiry. Learned counsel also submitted that the disciplinary authority after receiving subsequent report dated 17.12.2009, examined the entire documents relied upon by the enquiry officer i.e. enquiry report, statement of the petitioner etc. and reached to a definite finding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. 8. Counsel thus submitted that the disciplinary authority in agreement with the subsequent enquiry report, vide order dated 30.09.2009 terminated services of the petitioner. Counsel urged that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings cannot be equated as both are governed by different yardsticks of proof and procedure therefore, acquittal in the criminal case by extending benefit of doubt does not entitled petitioner to claim reinstatement in services. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record. 10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of President, Nagar Panchayat Umari vs. Shaym Charan Chaturvedi (Civil Appeal No. 2515 of 2021) held as under: “A departmental proceeding against a delinquent is a serious matter as it has its repercussions which can be far reaching. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings. 10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of President, Nagar Panchayat Umari vs. Shaym Charan Chaturvedi (Civil Appeal No. 2515 of 2021) held as under: “A departmental proceeding against a delinquent is a serious matter as it has its repercussions which can be far reaching. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings. The enquiry officer functions in a quasi-judicial capacity. He has a neutral role to perform and cannot act as a representative of the management. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth. The major punishment awarded to an employee visit serious civil consequences and as such the departmental proceedings ought to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Even if, an employee prefers not to participate in enquiry the department has to establish the charges against the employee by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. In case charges warrant major punishment then the oral evidence by producing the witnesses is necessary. The question of any cross examination by the delinquent arises subsequent to the charges having been prima-facie established in accordance with law. If the charges are not established in accordance with law, there is nothing for the delinquent to deny.” 11. It is a settled law that the departmental proceedings being quasi-judicial proceedings, enquiry officer performs quasi judicial functions, therefore, the charges levelled against delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding taking into consideration the material brought on record by the parties. True it is that the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like in a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt. However since, the enquiry officer performs a quasi judicial function, it is incumbent upon him to arrive at a just conclusion while taking into consideration the material produced before him. The enquiry officer cannot shift the burden of proof upon the delinquent and cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 12. In the instant matter from the facts stated, it is apparent that immediately after accident, Shri Balkishan, an officer of the respondent-corporation inspected the site of the accident and prepared a report. 12. In the instant matter from the facts stated, it is apparent that immediately after accident, Shri Balkishan, an officer of the respondent-corporation inspected the site of the accident and prepared a report. During the course of examination, Shri Balkishan specifically stated that the motorcycle in order to overtake came in front of the bus from the wrong side, however, had the bus been driven carefully the unfortunate incident could have been averted. The official also stated negligence was only partially attributable to the petitioner for the occurrence of accident. No statement was made by the official about rash driving on part of the petitioner. All the witnesses examined by enquiry officer which also includes passengers of the bus, stated that the accident occurred on account of the motorcycle being ridden in violation of traffic rules leading to collision with the bumper of the bus being driven by the petitioner on the left side. None of the witnesses alleged negligence on part of the bus driver or his being guilty of rash and negligent driving. 13. The initial enquiry officer appointed by the disciplinary authority after thoroughly examining the witnesses and perusing the documents produced before him, prepared enquiry report concluding that the charges levelled against the petitioner to be not proved. However, the said/initial enquiry report was not accepted by the disciplinary authority which subsequently appointed second enquiry officer. 14. The second enquiry officer after examining the witnesses and documents, already considered at length by the initial enquiry officer, vide enquiry report dated 17.12.2007, held the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved. However, the said/initial enquiry report was not accepted by the disciplinary authority which subsequently appointed second enquiry officer. 14. The second enquiry officer after examining the witnesses and documents, already considered at length by the initial enquiry officer, vide enquiry report dated 17.12.2007, held the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce the conclusions drawn by the second enquiry officer in subsequent enquiry report dated 17.12.2007: ^^tkap dk;Zokgh ds le; fy[ks x;s c;ku] dh xbZ ftjg] ;kf=;ksa ds c;ku] okgu nq?kZVuk fjiksZV ,oa vU; miyC/k nLrkostksa ls fofnr gksrk gS fd %& ¼1½ vkjksfir dh M;wVh fnukad fnukad 29-04-2007 dks okgu la[;k 1137 ij pkyd in dh FkhA ¼2½ okgu dh nq?kZVuk gqbZ ftlesa rhu ;kf=;ksa dh e`R;q gks xbZA ;g Ák.k?kkrd nq?kZVuk gSA ¼3½ okgu dh nq?kZVuk fjiksZV ls Li"V gksrk gS fd%& ¼d½ fiNokM+s dh Vddj gSA ¼[k½ fuxe okgu esa ,d gtkj dh {kfr gqgZ gSA ¼x½ okgu dh nksuksa dh fn'kk;sa xyr FkhA ¼?k½ okgu dh LihM 35&40 dh FkhA ¼³½ fuxe pkyd }kjk cgqr lehirk ls vuqxeu djuk o eksVj lkbZfdy pkyd vuqfpr rjhds ls fudkyus ds dkj.k ^^,d okgu ls nwljs okgu ds chp nwjh dk lgh vkdyu dj vksojVsd djuk pkfg,A** ¼4½ eksVj lkbZfdy ij rhu O;fDr lokj Fks ftldh iqf"V Hkh ,QŒvkbZŒvkjŒ ls gh gksrh gSA ;krk;kr fu;eksa ds vuqlkj eksVj lkbZfdy ij 3 O;fDr cSBdj ;k=k djuk xyr gSA ¼5½ vkjksfir }kjk ,QŒvkbZŒvkjŒ ntZ ugha djkbZ ftlls fd iqfyl esa vuqla/kku djrs le; vkjksfir dh ckr dks Hkh lquk tkukA ;gka vkjksfir us drZO;ksa dk ikyu ugha fd;kA ¼6½ okgu nq?kZVuk vVsUMdrkZ us ftjg esa ^^vkjksfir dk vkaf'kd :i ls nks"kh ekuk gSA** ¼7½ vkjksfir] vU; f'kdk;rkdrkZ us ftjg esa ekuk gS fd ^^eksVj lkbZfdy okyk] bUgksaus tc VSDVj ls vksojVsd dj jgs Fks] vpkud chp esa eksVj lkbZfdy vk tk;s rks nq?kZVuk gksuk LoHkkfod gSA** ¼8½ vkjksfir }kjk xokg is'k fd;s gS & os ,drjQk xokg gSA muds vuqlkj vkjksfir dh xyrh ugha ekudj] eksVj lkbZfdy lokj dh ekuh gSA vr% eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gaw fd i= la[;k 464 fnukad 16-05-2007 esa of.kZr vkjksi esa deZpkjh ds fo:) ;k=k drZO;ksa dk ikyu iw.kZ :i ls ugha djus dk nks"kh ekurk gwaA** (Emphasis supplied) 15. In view of catena of judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court and this Court, it is imperative that every enquiry report must contain reasons on which the conclusion is based for the reason that it results in deprivartion of livelihood or attaches stigma to the character of the delinquent. The tenor of the report clearly shows that the second enquiry officer had made up his mind to find the petitioner guilty of the charge. As otherwise, no material was available on record to show that the petitioner was guilty of causing accident due to rash and negligent driving. The enquiry officer is expected to function independently while conducting a departmental enquiry, evaluating the evidence and recording his findings/conclusions on the charges levelled against the delinquent officer. 16. From the perusal of reproduced portion of the inquiry report, it reveals that the second inquiry officer placed total reliance on the report of accident purportedly prepared by accident attendant i.e. Shri Balkishan and had not recorded independent reasons on the basis of which he has reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was driving the bus rash and negligently resulting into the unfortunate accident, which occurred on 29.04.2007. Though that was the basic charge against the petitioner. Further, the statement of Shri Balkishan cannot be read in isolation, without there being corroboratory evidence. 17. As far as the allegations with regard to criminal case against the petitioner in connection with the accident which occurred on 29.04.2007, is concerned, suffice it to note that a competent criminal court vide order dated 06.11.2009 after examining thirteen witnesses and other material had acquitted petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. 18. The disciplinary authority ignoring the material of departmental enquiry and evidence adduced before enquiry officer accepted the inquiry report dated 17.12.2007 by second enquiry officer and held the petitioner guilty of causing accident resulting in loss of life and loss to corporation due to rash and negligent driving. The disciplinary authority has observed that had the petitioner was not guilty, he ought to have filed an FIR immediately after the incident. However, the factum regarding petitioner being acquitted by competent court has been totally ignored. The appellate authority too ignored the material placed before it by the petitioner in the departmental appeal and without any application of mind rejected the appeal. 19. However, the factum regarding petitioner being acquitted by competent court has been totally ignored. The appellate authority too ignored the material placed before it by the petitioner in the departmental appeal and without any application of mind rejected the appeal. 19. In the result, this petition for writ is allowed. The order dated 30.09.2007 passed by disciplinary authority terminating the petitioner from services is declared illegal and the same is hereby quashed. The order dated 29.11.2010 passed by appellate authority affirming the order dated 30.09.2007 is also declared illegal, therefore, the same is also quashed. The petitioner is declared entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits which would include notional pay fixation except back wages for the period, he remained out of employment in pursuance to the order of termination dated 30.09.2007. 20. No order as to costs.