1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1815/1998 Umed Singh Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. Date of Order :: 02.03.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr S.L. Jain, for the petitioner/s. None present for the respondents. ... The petitioner, a Patwari, was subjected to disciplinary action under a memorandum dated 10.6.1994 issue as per the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rules, 1958 {hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Rules of 1958'}. The petitioner was charged for misusing his powers by making false entries in revenue record to support a non-existent person. In response thereto the petitioner submitted an explanation, however, the disciplinary authority decided to proceed against the petitioner to hold a regular inquiry. As per the petitioner the inquiry officer recorded his statements at inception of the inquiry without making any effort to get the charges proved by the prosecution. By the order dated 23.7.1996 a penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed and an appeal preferred against that as per the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 stood rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner on 29.1.1998 with enhancement of penalty from withholding of three annual grade increments to withholding of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect. 2 No reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire process of the inquiry including the order passed by the disciplinary authority on 23.7.1996 deserves to be quashed being passed in violation of principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity. As per him the penalty of withholding of annual grade increments with cumulative effect is having implication of reduction in rank and therefore the order impugned is also in violation of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is also asserted that the order passed by the appellate authority too is bad on the ground that no notice for enhancement of penalty was given. From perusal of the order passed by the disciplinary authority it is apparent that the disciplinary authority acted in most casual and hasty manner. He simply quoted the charges levelled against the the petitioner, findings given by the inquiry officer and then made an order of guilt and punishment. The disciplinary authority should have examined entire record of the inquiry before giving any finding. It was obligatory upon him to consider the evidence available and to assess findings of the inquiry officer on basis of the material available. The disciplinary authority has also not given any sort of reason for accepting petitioner's guilt. The order impugned is apparently non-speaking and unreasoned. As a matter of fact, the orders passed by disciplinary 3 authority and appellate authority no where disclose any material or evidence to support the findings given against the petitioner. I am also having no reason to disbelieve the averments made in petition for writ that no evidence was adduced to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner by the prosecution, as such, present one is a case of no evidence. The appellate authority also not cared to examine the appeal as per Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. Surprisingly enough, the appellate authority without giving even a notice to the petitioner enhanced the penalty. Be that as it may, I have already held the order passed by the disciplinary authority bad in the eye of law, thus, there is no need to further examine mega or minor details or defects of the order passed by the appellate authority. In view of whatever stated above, this petition for writ is allowed. The order dated 23.7.1996 passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Collector (Land Record), Sriganganagar is declared illegal and the same is quashed. The order passed by the appellate authority dated 29.1.1998 affirming the order dated 23.7.1996 with enhancement of penalty is also declared illegal, and therefore, the same is also quashed. Petition is declared entitled for all consequential benefits. No order as to costs. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '