Order : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers:- i. to quash the action of the respondents by which the punishment order dated 30.10.2019 which is communicate vide order dated07.11.2019. ii. to further direction directing the respondent to recall or otherwise set- aside the entire disciplinary proceeding including the charge-sheet dated 17.09.2013, order of the disciplinary authority dated 30.10.2019 and issued the whole consequential and retiral benefit which is not released in the garb of enquiry along with interest. iii. Other order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner with costs; 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was rendering services on the post of Inspector, and on account of pending criminal case the petitioner was suspended from the services and departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. 3. It is further submitted that respondents concluded the inquiry proceedings and passed an impugned order dated 30.10.2019 against the petitioner, whereby, 25 percent of the pension of the petitioner was stopped and remaining allowances were forfeited during the suspension period. Further, it is submitted that the said order should be quashed for the reason that the same is a non-speaking and an ex-parte order and is passed without application of mind sans taking into consideration the material aspect placed on record before the respondent authorities. 4. Further, it is submitted that criminal case registered against the petitioner was stayed by the Court, therefore, taking note of the fact witnesses were common, petitioner prayed to reserve cross examination due to the common witnesses, despite the request of the petitioner, respondents conducted parallel proceedings, the inquiry officer proceeded with the inquiry and passed an ex-parte impugned order which is de hors the circular dated 08.08.2001 (Annexure-A/2). 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable in the Year 1971, thereafter, petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector in the Year 2010. 6. It is further submitted that on account of registration of an FIR under the provisions of Section 376 and allied provisions under IPC read with Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, for molesting the female constable, the petitioner was arrested. 6. It is further submitted that on account of registration of an FIR under the provisions of Section 376 and allied provisions under IPC read with Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, for molesting the female constable, the petitioner was arrested. Thereafter, under the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 1958’) the petitioner was suspended. During the period of suspension, the petitioner stood retired on 30.09.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation and his pension was fixed provisionally. 7. Further, it is submitted that due to above mentioned conduct of the petitioner, news was published in the newspaper resultant to which image of the police department was tarnished, thus, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, and charge sheet dated 06.05.2010 was served upon the petitioner. 8. Subsequently, following the due procedure of law and following the principles of natural justice, the inquiry was concluded, wherein, charges leveled against the petitioner were found to be proved and an impugned order dated 30.10.2019 was passed by Director General of Police after concurrence of the RPSC. 9. Lastly, it is submitted that the contentions of the petitioner that the said impugned order was passed in an ex-parte manner and non- compliance with the above said circular are misconceived. 10. Heard and considered. 11. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, upon perusal of records, this Court has made the following observations:- 11.1 That an FIR was lodged against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 376 and allied provisions of IPC read with provisions of Section 3 of SC/ST Act, for molesting the female constable. 11.2. That respondents considering the nature of crime and other justified reasons, suspended the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958. 11.3. That disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and after complying with the principles of natural justice, and following the due procedure of law, the impugned order against the petitioner was issued by the Director General of Police. 11.4. That Hon’ble Apex Court in State of UP & Anr. vs. Manmohan Nath Sinha & Anr. 11.4. That Hon’ble Apex Court in State of UP & Anr. vs. Manmohan Nath Sinha & Anr. ; reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 , has held that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. 11.5. That contention of the petitioner that criminal and departmental proceedings cannot be conducted simultaneously is misconceived for the reason that as per the submission of the petitioner that criminal proceedings were stayed by the Court and circular which is relied upon provides for an exception that if delinquent employee has filed a reply to the charges, no question qua prejudice of his rights arises. Moreover, as per the dictum enunciated in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India vs. Neelam Nag reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491 , there is no legal bar to the conduct the disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings simultaneously. 11.6. That High Court is not open to re-appreciate and re-apprise the evidence led before the enquiry officer. 12. Taking note of the aforementioned observations, it is noted that the principal ground of an ex-parte order and non-speaking order is not made out. 13. Relying upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Industrial Forces and Ors., vs. Abrar Ali reported in AIR 2017 SC 200 and Manmohan Nath Sinha (supra), this Court is not inclined to interfere with the prayer so made in the present petition. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.