1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8152/2007. (MOHAN RAM PUNIA VS. STATE & ANOTHER) DATE OF ORDER : 06.08.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. D.R. Gurjar for the petitioner. Mr. M.R. Singhvi for the respondents. The petitioner was subjected to an enquiry as per the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. On denial of allegations, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations of misconduct levelled upon the petitioner as well as upon one Shri Mukul Kant Saxena, Inspector, Excise. The Enquiry Officer after holding regular enquiry, submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 02.02.2006. As per the report of Enquiry Officer, no allegation of misconduct was found established against the petitioner and, therefore, a recommendation was made for exoneration from the charges . The disciplinary authority by the order dated 10.6/7.2006 imposed a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect upon the petitioner by holding him guilty for misconduct. 2 An appeal preferred by the petitioner under the Rules of 1958 also came to be rejected by the Secretary, Finance(II), Government of Rajasthan on 29.10.2007. While assailing validity of the order passed by the appellate authority as well as the disciplinary authority, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are : (1) the disciplinary authority, if, was not in agreement with the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, it was obligatory upon him to convey the reasons for disagreement. (2) the orders impugned are otherwise too are bad being absolutely non-speaking and unreasoned. I have examined the documents annexed with the writ petition. From perusal of the enquiry report, it is apparent that no allegation of misconduct was found proved against the petitioner and, therefore, a recommendation was made by the 3 Enquiry Officer to exonerate him from all the charges. The disciplinary authority by the order impugned dated 10/6.7.2006 found the petitioner guilty for the misconduct, however, prior to that neither a copy of inquiry report was given to him nor he was made acquaint with the reasons for disagreement with the inquiry officer. If the disciplinary authority was of the view that the finding given by the Enquiry Officer was not correct, then it was obligatory upon him to provide reasons for such disagreement to the delinquent employee, and being not done so, the order imposing penalty is apparently bad. I also found substance in the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is not a reasoned order. The disciplinary authority just referred the allegations and quoted the certain portions of the Enquiry Report and imposed a penalty upon the petitioner. It is well settled that the disciplinary authority is required to give his own findings against each and every charge, specially in the cases where he is not in agreement with the Enquiry Officer. The order of disciplinary authority, therefore, is bad in eye of law. Once, I am statisfied that the order of disciplinary authority is bad, then there is no need to say that the order of appellate authority too is bad. 4 Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order passed by the disciplinary authority on 10.6/7.2006 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 29.10.2007 are hereby quashed. No order to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/