ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 15.01.2015 (Annex.10) whereby the inquiry as conducted against the petitioner has been remanded back by the Disciplinary Authority to the Inquiry Officer for a denovo inquiry. 2. The subject matter in issue is that a charge-sheet dated 29.08.2011 was issued to the petitioner who was working as an Accountant with the Regional Transport Office, Jodhpur. Vide the said charge-sheet, two charges were levelled against him. Firstly, that the petitioner was negligent in supervisory work in relation to the revenue collection and deposition of the said collection in the treasury. Because of the lacuna in the supervisory work, there has been a misappropriation of funds causing financial loss to the State Government. The second charge was that the petitioner neither performed his duty regarding the supervision of the receipt books issued to the Treasury Inspector nor did he inform that the revenue collected is not being deposited by the concerned inspector in the treasury. 3. After issuance of the charge-sheet, an Inquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the inquiry and vide his inquiry report dated 30.07.2014, held the petitioner to be not guilty. Qua the charges levelled against him, it was held that the other accountants who were allotted the work in question were responsible for the same. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the Inquiry Officer held that the petitioner had performed his duties/allotted work in time and therefore, the charges as levelled against him were held to be not proved. 4. The inquiry report was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the conclusion as arrived by the Inquiry Officer, found the same laconic and bereft of the detailed reasons. 4. The inquiry report was forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the conclusion as arrived by the Inquiry Officer, found the same laconic and bereft of the detailed reasons. The Disciplinary Authority further found that the inquiry report is silent as to on which dates the receipt books were issued; when and by whom the said receipt books were received; who were under the obligation to deposit the revenue collected in the treasury; what was the time limit to deposit the said revenue; whether the same was deposited within the required time limit or not; If yes, what was the amount deposited and how much was the amount embezzled; what were the orders governing supervision of the receipt books at the relevant point of time; were the receipt books checked in terms of the governing rules; who were the officers responsible for such checking/inspection; did they perform their duties in terms of the rules/orders; who were the inspectors who were required to deposit the amount and did they deposit the same and finally, who were the officers to whom the petitioner was required to intimate the abovementioned facts; whether the petitioner provided the said information and if not, who was responsible for the same. Noting down the above specific lacunas, the Disciplinary Authority remanded the inquiry back to the Inquiry Officer for a denovo inquiry on the points/issues as detailed out by him. Against the abovementioned order of remand, the present petition has been preferred with the submission that the Disciplinary Authority had no reason whatsoever to remand the matter as the inquiry report was already incorporating the reply to all the questions and issues as pointed out by the Disciplinary Authority in his order dated 15.01.2015. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the Inquiry Officer had reached to a specific conclusion that the petitioner was not guilty of any inaction and non-performance of duties, the Disciplinary Authority had no reason not to rely upon the said report. Learned counsel submitted that the inquiry report was passed totally in consonance with law and after considering all the evidence which was available on record. Learned counsel submitted that the inquiry report was passed totally in consonance with law and after considering all the evidence which was available on record. It was clear on record that the other two officers/employees were responsible for the embezzlement and the petitioner was not entrusted with any supervision of the cash receipts and therefore, he could not have been held entitled for any embezzlement in the cash deposition. The petitioner was entrusted only the supervision work of the RCRs and as per the Inquiry Officer, there was no discrepancy found in the entries made qua RCRs. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly held to be non-guilty by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority has, without even considering the said inquiry report, reached to a conclusion total contrary to the material and evidence available on record. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that vide office orders dated 17.04.2007 and 20.05.2010, functions of the accountants available with the Department were divided/allotted by the Regional Transport Officer in terms of the rules. As per the said orders, the petitioner was allotted the function of supervision of the RCRs of the Regional Office. Alongwith the said function, he was also allotted work of supervision and checking of the cash receipts of the Sub-Transport Office, Pipar. The embezzlement in question pertained to the Transport Office at Pipar and Phalodi only. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner was not allotted the function of checking of the cash receipts. Further, the function of supervision of all the RCRs was specifically allotted to the petitioner and had the said function been carried out by the petitioner responsibly, the embezzlement in question would not have occurred. It was the prime duty of the petitioner to tally the entries of the receipts and if any entry was not found to be made or was missing, the petitioner was duty bound to inform about the same to his higher officers. As the entries were not supervised/verified and not tallied by the petitioner timely, the embezzlement could not come into the notice of the Department in time for which the petitioner was very much responsible. As the entries were not supervised/verified and not tallied by the petitioner timely, the embezzlement could not come into the notice of the Department in time for which the petitioner was very much responsible. So far as the order of remand passed by the Disciplinary Authority is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the same was perfectly in terms of Rule 16(9) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules of 1958’). Learned counsel relied upon the office orders dated 30.03.1995, 08.09.1998 and 04.10.2007 in support of his contentions. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Vide the office order dated 17.04.2007 & 20.05.2010, the work allotment/division between the accountants working with the Department was made by the Regional Transport Officer as under: Order dated 17.04.2017 reads as under: ^^Øekad %&,Q@ifj@LFkk@1989 fnukad % 17-4-07 dk;kZy; vkns'k Ifjogu vk;qDr] ifjogu foHkkx] t;iqj ds dk;kZy; vkns'k Øekad 30@2004 fnukad 30-6-2004 dh vuqikyuk esa dk;kZy; esa dk;Zjr ys[kkdkjksa dk GF & AR izFke fu;e 25 ifjf'k"V 5 dh vuqikyuk es dk;Z foHkktu fuEu izdkj ls fd;k tkrk gS& Ø-la- Ukke deZpkjh o in dk;Z vkoaVu 1- Jh vkuUn flag jktiqjksfgr ys[kkdkj leLr ys[kk 'kk[kk ds dk;Z ds lkFk jksdM 'kk[kk] LVksj] Vs.Mj lEcaf/kr lEkLr dk;Z] jksdM+ cgh dh tkap dk;Z vkbZ-lh-ih- vkWfMV dk dk;Z] ,Q] bl o Mªk¶V] lh-,-th- o ih-,-lh- vads{k.k fujh{k.ka 2- Jh pqrjkjke jkBkSM+ ys[kkdkj mijksDr dks NksM+dj leLr izdkj ds vkWfMV izfrosnuksa dk dk;Z] leLr fcy 'kk[kk] ctV 'kk[kk dk dk;Z] vkj-lh-vkj] dj lR;kiu] Mhyjks ls lEcf/kr jlhn cqdksa dh tkap djuk@la?kkfjr Mh-lh-vkj- tkWp dk;Z djukA iqu% iath;u okguks ¼vU; jkT;ks½ dj lEca/kh okguks ls lEcf/kr dj vo/kkj.kk dh tkap dk leLr dk;ZaA mDr vkns'k rqjar izHkko ls ykxw gksaxsA^^ 9. Order dated 20.05.2010 reads as under: iz'kklfud n`f"V ls dk;kZyf;d dk;ksZa dks lqxerk ls lapkfyr djus gsrq izknsf'kd ifjogu dk;kZy; esa inLFkkfir ys[kkdkjksa ds dk;Z dk foHkktu fuEukuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA Ø-la- uke deZpkjh e; in dk;Z vkoaVu 1 Jh pqrjk jke jkBkSM ys[kkdkj 1- ih-,-lh-@lh-,-th-@Mªk¶V iSjkt dh vuqikyuk dk i;Zos{k.kh; dk;Z 2- jlhn la'kks/ku] lek;kstu] fjQUM] lR;kiu lEcU/kh izdj.kksa dk fuLrkj.k 3- {ks=h; dk;kZy; ds vkj-lh-vkj- dk lqij ohtu dk;Z 4- uohu iath;u ,oa iqu% iath;u izdj.kksa esa dj fjiksVZ 5- mi ifjogu dk;kZy; ihikM+ dk lqij ohtu o jksdM+ cgh dh tkap 6- xSj ifjogu ;kuksa (C.U.E.M) dh dj 'kk[kk dk i;Zos{k.k o Vh-lh-lh- dh tkap 2- Jh v'kksd O;kl ys[kkdkj 1- ICP (MVT&SRT) tkap izfrosnuksa] ,-th- ¼O;;½ izfrosnu] HkkSfrd lR;kiu izfrosnuksa dh vuqikyuk o i;Zos{k.kh; dk;Z 2- osru fcy] ctV] vU; O;; fcy 'kk[kk dk i;Zos{k.kh; dk;Z 3- Hkkj okguksa esa th ,oa 2 th dk leLr dk;Z ,oa 'ks"k lhfjt dk lqij ohtu o Vh-lh-lh- tkap dk;Z 4- {ks=h; dk;kZy; ,oa mi ifjogu dk;kZy; Qyksnh esa jksdM+ iqfLrdk dh tkap ,oa lqij ohtu dk;Z 3 Jh dsoy pUn xgyksr ys[kkdkj 1- egkys[kkdkj (MVT&SRT) vads{k.k izfrosnuksa dh vuqikyuk dk i;Zos{k.kh; dk;Z 2- fufonk,a Ø; izdj.kksa dk vaxzs"k.k 3- ,l-vkj-Vh- 'kk[kk dk leLr dk;Z e; Vh-lh-lh- dh tkap 4- jkT; ds ckgj ds Hkkj okgu ,oa Vh okgu 'kk[kk dk lqijfotu ,oa Vhlh-lh- dh tkap 5- xSj ifjogu ;kuksa (R,P) dh dj 'kk[kk dk i;Zos{k.k ,ao Vh-lh-lh- dh tkap 10. A bare perusal of the above orders show that the petitioner was allotted the function of supervision of the RCRs of the Regional Office. He was also allotted the function of verification of the receipts as well as the inspection of the cash receipts of the cash account pertaining to the Sub-Transport Office, Pipar. Admittedly, in the present matter, embezzlement pertained to the non-deposition of the amount by the inspectors collected by them through receipts. The embezzlement pertained to the Depot’s at Pipar and Phalodi. 11. A perusal of the inquiry report shows that the Inquiry Officer has reached to a specific conclusion that no work regarding the cash was allotted to the petitioner and therefore, he could not be held responsible for misconduct of any of his duties. The report shows that the said conclusion has been arrived by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the order dated 17.04.2007. The report shows that the said conclusion has been arrived by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the order dated 17.04.2007. It seems that the subsequent order dated 20.05.2010 has not been taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer whereby the inspection of the cash account qua Pipar was also allotted to him. Moreover, the embezzlement pertained to the RCRs of the receipt books only and the supervision of the RCRs was the exclusive function of the petitioner only. Therefore, the conclusion as arrived by the Inquiry Officer does not prima facie seems to be in consonance with the record. Moresoever, the Disciplinary Authority has in terms of the provisions of Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958, proceeded on to remand the matter back for the inquiry requiring the complete details of the matter which cannot be termed to be in excess of his jurisdiction. Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958 reads as under: “16. (9) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge. The Disciplinary Authority may while considering the report of the Enquiring 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.” 12. The only requirement in terms of Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958 is that the Disciplinary Authority, while considering the report of the Inquiring Authority, can, after recording sufficient reasons, remand the case for further/denovo inquiry if he has reasons to believe that the inquiry has been laconic in some respect or the other. 13. A perusal of the order dated 15.01.2015 clearly specifies that the Disciplinary Authority has pointed out each and every lacuna in the inquiry report and has after recording his reasons, remanded the case for further/denovo inquiry. In the opinion of this Court, the order dated 15.01.2015 being totally reasoned, just and passed after recording the finding on both the charges cannot be held to be arbitrary or invalid. The order is totally in conformity with the requirement of Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958 and therefore, is liable to be affirmed. In the opinion of this Court, the order dated 15.01.2015 being totally reasoned, just and passed after recording the finding on both the charges cannot be held to be arbitrary or invalid. The order is totally in conformity with the requirement of Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958 and therefore, is liable to be affirmed. Moresover, the Disciplinary Authority has not concluded anything against the petitioner and has just, on the basis of his findings, remanded the matter for denovo enquiry. 14. In view of the above observations, the present writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. 15. However, it is made clear that any observation made in the present order would not affect the inquiry to be taken up by the Inquiry Officer in pursuance to the order dated 15.01.2015. 16. It is also directed that the inquiry be completed by the Enquiry Officer within a period of three months after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 17. Stay petition and all the pending applications stand disposed of.