counsel submitted that the appointment of the Inquiry Officer prior to issuance of the charge-sheet and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file reply thereto, is ex facie violative of Rule 16(4) of the CCA Rules. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of statement of Julfa Sultana wherein a line is alleged to have been inserted subsequently, goes to show that there is no subsequent insertion. It is submitted that the ink used while recording the statement was throughout the same. Besides, it is submitted that on account of insertion of the alleged phrase, the merit of the case was not adversely affected and, therefore, there was no basis to substantiate the allegation of giving illegal gratification to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the admission of guilt was obtained by the Presiding Officer exerting pressure upon the petitioner and, therefore, the same cannot be made basis for finding of guilt against the petitioner. Drawing the attention of this Court to the representations (Annexure-3 & 4) alleged to have been made by the petitioner to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanore and to the District & Session Judge, Udaipur, learned counsel submitted that the factum of the admission of guilt being obtained by the Presiding Officer was brought to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority on the same day, which substantiates the allegation of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that on a revision petition being preferred by coaccused Ashok Kumar, the order taking cognizance dated 14.10.09 for the offences under Section 446, 120B & 109 IPC stands set aside by the
