1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2482/2005 (K.N. Bajpayee Vs. Tilam Sangh & Ors.) Date of order : 11.7.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Ashok Chhangani, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging Annexure-P/3 dated 1/2.1.2003 whereby the petitioner was penalized with the penalty of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect in the department enquiry initiated against him under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, so also, the order of appellate authority dated 23/26.4.2003 whereby the appellate authority while upholding the finding of disciplinary authority has modified the order dated 1/2.1.2003 and instead of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect has reduced the same to withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect. 2 The main contention of the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority has inflicted a major penalty of withholding two grade increments with cumulative effect for which the proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was required to be followed because the said procedure is prescribed for inflicting major penalty whereas the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules but major penalty of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect was inflicted which is totally illegal. Further, it is submitted that the appellate authority has modified the order and reduced the penalty from withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect to withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect. But the petitioner was initially charge-sheeted under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and the said rule is provided in the CCA Rules for taking action against an employee for inflicting minor penalty. Therefore, from the date of inception, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were illegal, thus, whole enquiry deserves to be quashed. Further, it is prayed that although the penalty was reduced by the appellate authority but the findings are based upon the enquiry conducted against the petitioner under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that both the impugned orders are totally non- 3 speaking orders and have no force of law in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1990 (4) SCC 595 in which it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that any order for inflicting penalty must be speaking order and the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority is required to assign reasons so also are under obligation to assess the evidence on record objectively. Therefore, both the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Division Bench passed in DB Civil Special Appeal No.1712/1986 dated 6.11.1987 while following the judgment reported in 1987 (1) RLR 346 in which the Division Bench of this Court has held that for inflicting major penalty against a government employee the procedure laid down in Rule 16 of the CCA Rules is required to be followed. But in this case, the disciplinary authority has inflicted a major penalty against the petitioner while taking recourse of Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and the appellate authority has reduced the penalty but right from inception, there was illegality upon which the disciplinary authority has passed an order for major penalty, therefore, both the orders deserve to be quashed. 4 I have perused both the impugned orders passed by disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. In my opinion, both the orders are non-speaking orders, so also, the disciplinary authority has inflicted major penalty without taking recourse of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and although the appellate authority has reduced the penalty but the order passed is totally non-speaking order. Therefore, both the orders passed by disciplinary authority or the appellate authority are hereby quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that if respondents are still of the opinion that any disciplinary action is required to be taken against the petitioner, then they are free to take action against him in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun