JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Raraesh Chandra was served with a charge-sheet alongwith a statement of allegations dated May 17, 1969 and an enquiry was made against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). Two charges were framed against the petitioner. The first charge was that while the petitioner was working as a Veterinary Surgeon, Incharge of the Veterinary Hospital at Pratapgarh, he charged fees for vaccination of horses from their owners, on December 18, 1966. Charge No. 2 related to the collection of fees for vaccination of horses on January. 12 and 13,1967, from the owners of such horses. It was alleged that in doing so, the petitioner misused his official position. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, Rajasthan, Jaipur, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, as the explanation submitted by the petitioner in respect of the charge-sheet was considered by the State Government as unsatisfactory. The conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated February 12, 1971. may be reproduced in his own words:- "Yet whatever has come on record clearly substantiates that Shri R. C. Gupta, D. O. did recover some amounts when he was vaccinating horses and it was later on transferred to the Committee concerned for the purpose of construction of dispensary building. The prosecution had not been able to prove that there were departmental instructions prohibiting c Election of such amounts by way of fee or otherwise. The rule 6 of the Rajasthan Government Servants Conduct and Pensioners Rules, however, clearly prohibits collection of subscriptions, which in my view also cover contributions. So subject to the above observations the allegations against the delinquent officer Shri R. C. Gupta stands proved. He certainly made misuse of his position to that extent." The case of the petitioner was that he did not realise any amount by way of fees at all, on account of vaccination of horses. But according to him, the concerned persons had contributed on their own accord for the construction of a building for the dispensary and that the amount so contributed was collected by one Abdul Rehman, who was Incharge of the Sub-Veterinary Dispensary, Arnod, where the amounts were collected and the same were made over by him to the building construction committee, Arnod for the purpose of construction of building for the dispensary. On the basis of the aforesaid finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the State Government imposed a penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner by its order dated June 14, 1971 (Ext. 3). A review petition was preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order passed by tie State Government and (hereupon the penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect was modified to that of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. A further review petition to the Government having failed, the petitioner has approached this Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government, while imposing the penalty upon the petitioner as well as while deciding the review application, did not give any reasons for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and the Enquiry Officer has not also given any finding at all to the effect that the petitioner realised any amount by way of fees. The submission of the learned counsel is that there was no charge against the petitioner that either he by himself collected any amount by way of contribution for construction of a dispensary building at Arnod or that he helped in the collection of such an amount for building construction and as such the charges framed against the petitioner have not at all been proved and, therefore, the punishment imposed upon him is based on no material or finding. 4. The record of the Enquiry conducted against the petitioner was called for the perusal of this Court and it appears from a perusal thereof that some amount was collected from the villagers of Panchayat Samiti, Arnod, for the construction of a dispensary building by Abdul Rehman, who was Incharge of the Veterinary Sub-Dispensary at Arnod or was paid by them to him. 'Abdul Rehman, who was examined as P.W. 3 at the enquiry stated that Rs. 61/- were collected for construction of dispensary building by way of contribution, which amount was sent by him with Chhatrasal, peon, for depositing the same with the Building Construction Committee. According to this witness proper receipts, in respect of contribution so paid, were issued by the Panchayat, specifying the amount collected for construction of building for the dispensary. 61/- were collected for construction of dispensary building by way of contribution, which amount was sent by him with Chhatrasal, peon, for depositing the same with the Building Construction Committee. According to this witness proper receipts, in respect of contribution so paid, were issued by the Panchayat, specifying the amount collected for construction of building for the dispensary. The witness also produced a list of persons who had made the contributions in question. The Enquiry Officer relied upon the admission of the petitioner contained in document Ex. P. 3 produced at the enquiry, wherein the petitioner admitted that certain amounts were collected for construction of the dispensary building but it was also stated by him that such amounts were deposited on those very dates with the committee on which they were collected. The document Ex. P. 4, produced at the enquiry by the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Udaipur, was also relied upon by the Enquiry Officer for arriving at the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 61/-which was collected by way of contribution for construction of the dispensary building was deposited on March 3, 1967. This document purports to have been executed by Abdul Rehman. But it is strange that although Abdul Rehman was examined at the enquiry as P. W 3, the said document was not put to the aforesaid witness, P. W 4. Y.V. Thatte District Animal Husbandry Officer, Udaipur, who produced the document Ex. P. 4. also did not state about the correctness of the contents thereof except that the same purported to have been written by Abdul Rehman and was forwarded to him by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Arnod. 5. It is abundantly clear from the record of the enquiry that even the Enquiry Officer does not appear to have come to the conclusion that any amount was collected by the petitioner by way of fees for vaccinating the horses. According to him, the delinquent officer did recover some amount which were later on transferred to the Committee concerned for the purpose of construction of the dispensary building. The two charges framed against the petitioner clearly mentioned that the said amounts were alleged to have been recovered by him "as fees for vaccination of horses" and others is no charge contained therein that the petitioner collected any amount by way of contribution, for the purpose of construction of the dispensary building. The two charges framed against the petitioner clearly mentioned that the said amounts were alleged to have been recovered by him "as fees for vaccination of horses" and others is no charge contained therein that the petitioner collected any amount by way of contribution, for the purpose of construction of the dispensary building. Moreover, the finding that the petitioner retained the amount for some time and made over the same to Abdul Rehman, Incharge of the Building Construction Committee on March 3, 1967 is is based solely on the document Ex. P. 4 purported to have been written by Abdul Rehman, But, as I have been already observed above, the said document was never put to Abdul Rehman P. W. 3 when he appeared as a witness during the enquiry. Therefore, I am constrained to observe that the producer followed by the Enquiry Officer in the present case was not only illegal but was rather strange inasmuch as Abdul Rehman stated as P. W. 3 that whatever amount was collected was placed on the table which he handed over then and there to Chhatrasal, peon for being deposited with the building construction committees. If there was any document written by P. W. 3 Abdul Keham, the contents of which were contrary to the statement which the aforesaid witness gave at the enquiry, then the said document should have been put to him in order to ascertain the correctness of either of the statements made by the witness, one at the enquiry and the other contained in the document Ex. P 4 At any rate even the document Ex. P. 4, which is the basis of the finding of guilt arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, clearly shows that the amount was collected for construction of Veterinary Dispensary Building and the amount was made over the Building Construction Committee, Arnod, which gave receipts to the respective donors. It is not necessary for me to consider in the present case the question as to whether it was proper tor the petitioner or not to collect contributions for a philanthropic purpose i. e. the construction of veterinary dispensary building at Arnod, because no such charge was ever made against the petitioner and he was not required to meet any such allegation. If such an allegation would have been made, then the petitioner might have availed of the opportunity to show as to whether he was acting on his own behalf while collecting the contributions or donations or whether the office bearers of the Panchayat and other local bodies were responsible for making such collections. In any view of the matter, whether any amount was collected by way of contribution for construction of the Veterinary Dispensary building at Arnod or not, the charge of collecting any amount by way of fees for vaccination of horses by the petitioner has not been substantiated, nor there is a finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that any such charge was proved against the petitioner. 6. If the charges levelled against the petitioner were that he recovered specified amounts by way of fees for vaccination of horses, then he could not be penalised for an entirely different charge, namely of making collection of some amounts by way of contribution for the purpose of construction of a veterinary dispensary building in village Arnod. It was because of this infirmity in the case, that the Enquiry Officer was also unable to give a firm finding as to what specific charge or portion thereof was found proved by him against the petitioner. I have quoted above, a substantial portion of the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and it is clear therefrom that the petitioner could not be held guilty of the charges framed against him Moreover, I may also point out here that while charge No 1 framed against the petitioner related to the recovery of some Amount by way of fees on December 18, 1966 yet this Statement of allegations annexed to the charge-sheet shows certain collections having been made on December 23, 1966, which is exemplary of the uttar carelessness with which the matter has been dealt with and considered by the departmental authorities. 7. In this view of the matter, I hold that there is no material to substantiate the two charges levelled against the petitioner, regarding collection of fees for vaccination of horses on December 18, 1966 and on January 12 and 13, 1967 from the owners of the horses and the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence. Moreover, the Enquiry Officer in the present case has found the petitioner guilty of absolutely different charges than those which were framed against him. 8. The result is that the orders passed by the State Government on June 14, 1971 (Ex. 3) and April 17, 1972 (Ex. 5) are quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and consequently the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is set aside. As the matter relates to certain events which took place as far back as in the year 1967. I do not consider that it would be advisable or that any useful purpose would now be served by initiating fresh disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the matter in question. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******