1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.712/2007 Masooq Ali & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :: 14th July, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Devendra Singh Dev, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, for the respondents. .... By this petition for writ the petitioners have given challenge to the order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the Director, Technical Education affirming the order dated 30.1.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Bikaner imposing penalty of the recovery of the sum of Rs.23,920/- from each of the petitioners. In brief, facts of the case are that a theft took place on 13.3.2003 at Government Polytechnic College, Bikaner and a criminal case relating to that was also lodged at Jai Narain Vyas Colony, Police Station, Bikaner. The Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Bikaner initiated disciplinary action against the respondents as per the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 against the petitioners for negligence in discharging duties that resulted into theft. The disciplinary authority 2 by order dated 30.1.2004 imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs.23,920/- from each of the petitioners against the loss caused. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners giving challenge to the order aforesaid and that came to be rejected by the Director Technical Education on 10.11.2006. While challenging the order passed by the appellate authority as well as the disciplinary authority, the contention of counsel for the petitioners is that as a matter of fact the disciplinary authority never applied his mind while holding the petitioners guilty for the misconduct alleged. In reply to the writ petition, it is stated by the respondents that the petitioners were working as Watchmen and because of their negligence a theft took place in the College, thus, the disciplinary authority rightly imposed the penalty i.e. recovery of the amount equivalent to the loss caused. I have perused the order passed by the disciplinary authority. A bare look of the order impugned makes it abundantly clear that the disciplinary authority acted in pursuant to the instructions given by the Directorate, Technical Education, Jodhpur for 3 effecting recovery from the petitioners. As a matter of fact the Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Bikaner being disciplinary authority was required to apply his independent mind while taking a disciplinary action against the petitioners. In the instant matter the disciplinary authority has specifically referred a communication dated 9.12.2003 whereby a direction was given by the Directorate, Technical Education to effect recovery for the loss caused. Beside that, the disciplinary authority also acted upon certain recommendations made by a committee constituted on 5.1.2004. The disciplinary authority has not given any finding regarding charges framed against the petitioner. The order impugned dated 30.1.2004, therefore, is apparently bad. The petition for writ, therefore, is allowed. The order impugned dated 30.1.2004 as affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.11.2006 is quashed. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.