1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
CIVIL WRIT No. 1500 of 1994
POKAR RAM
V/S
STATE OF RAJ.
Mr. MS SINGHVI, for the appellant / petitioner
Mr. RN UPADHYAY, Mr. MA SIDDIQUI, DY.GA, for the
respondent
Date of Order : 8.9.2009
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
ORDER
—–
This is second round of litigation, seeking
direction to call the entire record including answer books and
orders dated 27.1.1994 and 1.3.1994, and for quashing these
two orders, Annex.7 and 8. It is also prayed that inquiry
report be also requisition and be declared illegal. Various
other prayers have also been made.
The controversy arises in the background that for
the purpose of appointment on the post of Forester, the
petitioner and the private respondent had undergone necessary
training, and thereafter examinations were held, in which in
all 11 papers were given. The result of that examination was
declared, and from that point, the controversy has arisen,
inasmuch as, the petitioner was aggrieved of the result, and
therefore, he raised the grievance, whereupon inquiry was got
conducted by the department, and vide report dated 9.12.1992,
it was inter-alia found, that there had been an interpolation
in the answer books in particular subject after examination,
and ultimately, the private respondent was declared to have
2
failed, and was debarred for three years from taking up the
training. Likewise, an inquiry under Rule 16 of the C.C.A.
Rules was also directed to be initiated, and appropriate
proceedings under I.P.C. were also directed to be taken.
Thereupon the private respondent filed a writ petition before
this Court at Jaipur Bench, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.7937/1992, which came to be allowed on 15.3.1993, solely on
the ground, that opportunity of hearing was not given to the
present private respondent, he was also required to be allowed
to inspect the material, and then only the order could be
passed. Consequently, the writ was allowed, Annex.5 therein
was set aside, and it was left open to the department to issue
show cause notice, to give an opportunity to the petitioner to
show cause, allowing him to inspect the record, and thereafter
to make a fresh order. However, it was found, that it will not
be necessary to allow the petitioner therein to lead evidence
in the case of present nature.
Thereafter a fresh inquiry was conducted and report
was submitted on 9.12.1993, which has been produced on record
by the State respondents, in compliance of the direction given
by this Court on 8.11.1994. In this inquiry report, it was
found, that the result originally declared does not require
any amendment and it was observed that the result was declared
after an inordinate delay of about 16 months, which resulted
into violation of secrecy, inasmuch as, all answer books had
been received in August 1991 itself, however it was directed
that henceforth the result should be declared within three
months of completion of the examinations.
Consequently, the orders, Annex.7 and 8 annexed with
3
the writ petition had been passed, to the effect, that the
result as declared on 1.12.1992 should be treated to be
effective, whereby the private respondent was declared to have
stood first, and was consequently given appointment. It is in
this background, that these orders, Annex.7 and 8, and the
inquiry report are under challenge.
The matter came to be heard by various Benches from
time to time, and every Bench felt something fishy, and
therefore, various records were called, including question
papers and answer books. Not only that, the question papers
and answer books were also allowed, rather directed to be
shown to both the parties, which obviously shows, that the
different Benches did not feel satisfied with the inquiry
report dated 9.12.1993.
It was not disputed during course of the arguments,
and on the face of both the inquiry reports, and which could
possibly not be disputed either, that there had been
interpolations, which are visible from a naked eye in the
answer books. In my view, the interpolations are on very
material aspects, having material bearing on the ultimate
result.
With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I
have gone through the inquiry report dated 9.12.1993. A total
reading of the inquiry report shows, that the inquiry has not
been proper and fair, and has also not been complete either,
inasmuch as, various aspects having material bearing on the
controversy, have either not been gone into, or a very poor
homage has been paid to the requirement, by not examining the
4
concerned persons, who were required to be examined.
It is not for me to embark upon the question, as to
why and how such an approach was undertaken in conducting the
inquiry, and submitting the report, which could be described
to be, either casual, or superficial, or might be even
partisan. However the fact remains, that in the inquiry report
dated 9.12.1993 also it has positively been found, that the
result was declared after about 16 months of completion of the
examination, and receipt of answer books, and this inordinate
delay has resulted into violating the secrecy of the result.
This does show, that even in view of the Inquiry Authority,
the things did not appear to him to be worth giving altogether
a clean chit. Be that as it may.
I do not mean to be understood, to be either
commenting upon, or making any observation either-ways, as to
what should have been the conclusion of the inquiry, one way
or the other, but all this has been observed, only for the
purpose of expressing myself, to the effect, that the inquiry
is not satisfactory.
In that view of the matter, I am constrained to set
aside this inquiry report dated 9.12.1993. Obviously as a
necessary consequence, Annex.7 and 8 also go, and are required
to be set aside, and accordingly Annex. 7, 8 and the inquiry
report dated 9.12.1993 are all quashed and set aside.
Then coming to the practical aspect of the matter,
that the fact does remain, that the private respondent has
been appointed as there was no interim order, and is serving,
5
while quashing Annex.7 and 8, setting aside the inquiry report
dated 9.12.1993, and leaving the matter at that only, will
simply have the effect of removing the private respondent from
the post, without any further direction, which would not be in
the interest of justice, after all, the question is, as to
whether the private respondent was eligible to be appointed,
or the petitioner was eligible to be appointed, as the tie is
only between the two candidates, both the persons had
undergone the training, and had appeared in the examination.
In that view of the matter, the matter is required
to be carried to the logical conclusion, and the person, in
whose favour the conclusion is ultimately reached, is entitled
to be given appointment, from the retrospective date.
Obviously for arriving at a logical conclusion, a
threadbare inquiry is required to be conducted, and from the
perusal of the two inquiry reports, it is clear, that the
departmental authorities can no more be relied upon, for being
entrusted the inquiry, as that would simply result into
further prolonging of the agony, instead of putting it to an
end.
In that view of the matter, with the consent of the
counsels present, it is directed, that the matter be got
inquired by the C.B.I. on all relevant aspects of the
controversy, by active participation of the petitioner and the
private respondent, and also examining all relevant, concerned
and connected persons, and examining the record, and to come
to a conclusion, as to whether the result as declared on
1.12.1992 is required to be sustained, or the amended result
6
as declared on 9.12.1992 is required to be sustained.
Obviously if the C.B.I. comes to the conclusion,
that the result declared on 9.12.1992 is required to be
sustained, then the petitioner will get appointment on the
said post, with effect from the date the private respondent
had been appointed, the private respondent in that event will
stand removed, and the petitioner will get all actual cash
consequential benefits, and in that event, it will be open to
the department, to recover those amounts from the private
respondent. On the other hand, if the C.B.I. comes to the
conclusion, that the result as declared on 1.12.1992 is
required to be sustained, then the present petitioner will not
be entitled to any relief whatever. It is also clarified, that
in the event of C.B.I. coming to the conclusion about the
result dated 9.12.1992 being required to sustain, in that
event, it will also be open to the C.B.I. to launch
prosecution against the delinquents, who may be found guilty
by the C.B.I.
The C.B.I. should complete the inquiry most
expeditiously, as the controversy is already 18 years old.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed as above.
The parties shall bear their own costs of this writ petition.
( N P GUPTA ),J.
/tarun/