Judgment:
Prakash Tatia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the initiation of the departmental inquiry against the petitioner by issuing charge-sheet (Annex.14). As per the charge level against the petitioner, he is facing inquiry for purchase of commodities, which were already expired. The amount of purchase has been shown as Rs. 12,12,490/- as per the charge No. 1. Another charge is that petitioner purchased the pesticides and medicines of higher price causing loss to the society of Rs. 23,224.43 and third charge is that the petitioner embezzled Rs. 1440/-.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that a regular inquiry was conducted under Section 57(1) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2001) by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies and in that inquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from the same charges vide order dt. 29.09.2008, which was communicated to the petitioner on 13.10.2008. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the said order as Annex.15 alognwith the additional affidavit.
4. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner once for the same charge, the petitioner has been exonerated in inquiry under Section 57 by a competent authority and that too, an independent authority then petitioner cannot be subjected to the departmental inquiry for same charge.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-society submitted that the respondents are intending to challenge the order Annex.15 dt. 29.09.2008 and, therefore, the charge cannot be quashed at this stage. However, learned Counsel for the respondents also submitted that they are yet to obtain the copy of the order dt. 29.09.2008, obviously in that view of the matter they yet to decide whether to challenge the order dt. 29.09.2008 by application of mind by taking a positive decision on it. It is also clear from the arguments of learned Counsel for the respondent that how that order will be challenged is also not very clear. Be it as it may be, the respondents' right to challenge the order dt. 29.09.2008 (Annex.15) is concerned, they can have the remedy in accordance with law and the authority who can re-examine the order dt. 29.09.2008 may take a decision in accordance with law if matter is taken up to that authority.
6. It appears from the facts of the case that petitioner was removed from service by order dt. 24.05.2008 which was challenged by the petitioner by filing SBCWP No. 3672/2007 which has been allowed by the order of this Court today i.e., 10.08.2008 and the order dt. 24.05.2008 has been set aside. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet which is dt. 20.05.2007. After issuance of this charge-sheet dt. 25.05.2007, the petitioner was removed from service within four days. Be it as it may be, it is no in dispute that for the same charge inquiry was conducted by competent authority and that too, by Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under Section 17 (1) of the Act of 2001 and he has been exonerated. The order exonerating the petitioner yet has not been challenged and from the facts more apparent is that yet there is no final decision to challenge the order dt. 29.09.2008. In these facts and circumstances, I do not find that the departmental inquiry can proceed against the petitioner for the allegations for which petitioner has already been exonerated by a Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Act of 2001.
7. Since the contention of respondents is that they are challenging the order dt. 29.09.2008, therefore, it is made clear that the respondents will be free to take appropriate action and may initiate the inquiry afresh, in case the order dt. 29.09.2008 is set aside in accordance with law. It will be relevant to mention here that petitioner's another writ petition which is SBCWP No. 3672/2007, this Court quashed the order to remove the petitioner from service dt. 24.07.2007 by separate judgment delivered today itself and made clear that the respondent will be free to take any action against the petitioner in accordance with law, that matter is separate and has nothing to do with this order.
8. The writ petition of the petitioner is therefore, allowed. The inquiry initiated against the petitioner vide Annex.14 dt. 20.05.2007 is quashed and set aside subject to condition referred above.