Order : 1. The matter comes up for consideration of application (I.A. No. 01/2024) under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of the following ex-parte interim order dated 05.12.2023:- “1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is a driver. 3. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sachin Saraswat appearing on behalf of the petitioner has shown this Court the T.C. Form (Annexure-4), which is signed by the respective officer. 3.1 Learned Senior Counsel has further taken this Court to the inquiry conducted (Annexure-2), in which, there is a complete exoneration of the present petitioner though, while noting the exoneration and no further requirement to carry on with the proceedings, the Committee has referred it for further decision to the Education Department saying that looking into the severity of the charge of a fraudelent T.C., the matter may be put up before the Committee. 3.2 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that once the proper inquiry Committee has been formed and it has drawn a considered conclusion then there was no reason to proceed further in the matter. 3.3 Learned Senior Counsel has also demonstrated from letters dated 23.09.2021 & 30.09.2021 (Annexure-3) that there was a verification from the concerned District Education Officer. 4. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 11.01.2024. 5. In the meanwhile, effect and operation of the charge-sheet dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure-7) shall remain stayed.” 2. Mr. Jay Kishan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation took the Court through the petitioner’s contentions noted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while staying effect and operation of the charge-sheet dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure-7) and contended that while taking the Court through the inquiry report (Annexure-2), a picture was portrayed before the Court as if, the inquiry committee consisting of three Officers of the respondent-Corporation had exonerated the petitioner of all the alleged charges, whereas, the facts are entirely different - not as claimed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel submitted that three members Committee had closed the proceedings as the complainant (Bhanwar Singh) was not turning up. He pointed out that the report clearly mentions that looking to the nature of serious allegations, a report in relation to genuineness of petitioner’s Transfer Certificate be obtained from the Education Department. 4. 3. Learned counsel submitted that three members Committee had closed the proceedings as the complainant (Bhanwar Singh) was not turning up. He pointed out that the report clearly mentions that looking to the nature of serious allegations, a report in relation to genuineness of petitioner’s Transfer Certificate be obtained from the Education Department. 4. Learned counsel further invited Court’s attention towards the communication dated 02.08.2023 sent by the District Education Officer (Secondary), Head Office, Nagaur and submitted that the Education Department has clearly reported that the name of the petitioner (Kishore Singh) does not find mentioned in the enrollment list of the Government Sr. Secondary School, Toshina. 5. Mr. Saraswat, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that while initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents have mentioned that the act of the petitioner is in violation of Condition No. 34(i) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Standing Orders, 1965 ’), whereas, the case in question does not fall within the scope of such clause. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering that the controversy lies in a narrow compass and because the arguments advanced for application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India are more or less same, the Court deemed it appropriate to decide the present writ petition itself, rather than confining the adjudication to the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India . 8. A perusal of the so called inquiry report (Annexure-2), whereby the petitioner claims to have been exonerated of all the charges, reveals that as a matter of fact, the petitioner has not been exonerated. The three member Committee has simply observed that that since the complainant has not turned up, the complaint cannot be proceeded with. 9. While doing so, the Committee has taken cognizance of the seriousness of the allegations and has called for comments of the Education Department. The respondent – Corporation in turn, has elicited report about the genuineness of petitioner’s Transfer Certificate from the Education Department and the Education Department has reported vide communication dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure-6) that the subject Transfer Certificate is not genuine. 10. The respondent – Corporation in turn, has elicited report about the genuineness of petitioner’s Transfer Certificate from the Education Department and the Education Department has reported vide communication dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure-6) that the subject Transfer Certificate is not genuine. 10. According to this Court, while granting the interim relief, co- ordinate Bench of this Court was not properly apprised of the facts and the following stipulation made in the report (At Page No. 22)escaped its attention: 11. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that there was no exoneration of the petitioner in the eye of law. Furthermore, the report sent by the District Education Officer dated 02.08.2023 clearly shows that that the Transfer Certificate, which the petitioner had produced at the time of securing appointment was fraudulent/forged. 12. True it is, that the charges levelled against the petitioner may or may not fall within the ambit of Condition No. 34 (i) of the Standing Orders, 1965 , but since the report dated 02.08.2023 sent by the Education Department suggests that the Transfer Certificate, which the petitioner had produced is fraudulent, the basis of the petitioner’s appointment itself becomes doubtful. 13. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to interfere in the disciplinary proceedings, which have been initiated against the petitioner by way of memorandum of charges dated 07.11.2023. 14. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 15. Needless to clarify that the discussion made hereinabove is relevant only for the purpose of examining petitioner’s challenge to the disciplinary proceedings. The observation made hereinabove may not be construed to be finding of this Court on merits or otherwise of the contentious Transfer Certificate. 16. The inquiry officer shall be under a duty to provide full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and objectively consider petitioner’s case in accordance with law, without being influenced by the dismissal of instant petition or observations made therein. 17. Stay application so also interlocutory application stands dismissed, accordingly.