1 S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.792/2006 BALRAM JHORAR V.THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER. DATE OF ORDER :::: 13/03/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. H.S.Sidhu, for Petitioner. Mr. O.P.Boob, for Respondents. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment and the order passed in appeal against the order of punishment. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was served with the charge- sheet, followed by an inquiry. After completion of inquiry. Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report at Annexure-7, wherein charge not found to be proved entirely. It is contended that despite of inquiry report in favour of the petitioner, the order of punishment was passed by the disciplinary authority finding the charge as proved without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before disagreeing with the finding of the inquiry officer. It is further contended that the ground aforesaid was taken 2 while filing an appeal, but then, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal summarily without even considering this aspect of the matter in proper terms. The petitioner then filed a review petition, but then, the review petition was also dismissed. In view of the argument raised above, the prayer of the learned counsel for th petitioner is that the order of punishment deserves to be set aside so as the order in appeal and review. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the delinquency of the petitioner was found proved on the face of record by the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, the Court should not interfere in the order of punishment. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material placed on record. Perusal of the inquiry report shows that the finding recorded therein does not show that the charge against the petitioner was found to be proved entirely, rather not only the concluding para, but the material otherwise discussed does not show that the petitioner's delinquency was found proved therein. In view of the above, if at all, Disciplinary 3 Authority was of the view that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are not correct, then a show cause notice ought to have been given to the petitioner before recording disagreement on finding in inquiry report. However, the perusal of the records does not show that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner, rather the impugned order of punishment also does not show any such position. In view of the above, disagreement in regard to the charge by the Disciplinary Authority or in other words, the fresh finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in regard to the charges cannot be accepted, being in violation of the principles of natural justice, therefore, the impugned order of punishment and the orders passed in appeal, as well as review are set aside. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to proceed further with the matter from the stage subsequent to the submission of the inquiry report. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd 4