JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is an Ex-class IV servant, the process server in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Bundi. After holding a departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short the C.C.A. Rules), the Disciplinary Authority (District & Sessions Judge, Bundi) under order dated 21st May, 1980 imposed a penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. The said penalty was proposed in a show cause notice issued by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bundi and after considering the representation filed by the petitioner.The learned District & Sessions Judge further observed that this will not be disqualification for future employment, of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order to the High Court and the High Court in its order dated 7th January 1981, (Annex.H) dismissed the appeal. 2. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders inter alia on the grounds (1) that there has been contravention of Rule 18 of the C.C.A. Rules in holding a common inquiry; (2) the appeal was disposed of by a non-speaking order; and (3) that the petitioner and Shri Bahadur Singh L.D.C. were almost similarly situated and a common inquiry was held against both of them but the disciplinary authority for the petitioner was District and Sessions Judge, Bundi and that of Bahadur Singh was District and Sessions Judge, Kota. Different penal,ties have been inflicted. In the case of petitioner a penalty from removal from service is imposed whereas only a penalty of censure has been imposed in the case of Bahadur Singh. The penalty imposed on the petitioner even otherwise is 1is-proportionate to the nature of the misconduct of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner joined his services as class IV servant in the office of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bundi on 17th March 1970. At that time there was no separate judge-ship in Bundi and that was in the Kota judge-ship and was having a court of Additional District & Sessions Judge. It was some time before the present incident took place that Bunch was made separate judge-ship. So far as staff of Bundi is concerned under the C.C.A. Rules, District & Sessions Judge, Bundi was the disciplinary authority whereas for the staff of Kota judge ship District and Sessions Judge, Kota was the disciplinary authority. 4. It was some time before the present incident took place that Bunch was made separate judge-ship. So far as staff of Bundi is concerned under the C.C.A. Rules, District & Sessions Judge, Bundi was the disciplinary authority whereas for the staff of Kota judge ship District and Sessions Judge, Kota was the disciplinary authority. 4. The only ground on which I am compelled to interfere is the penalty imposed on Bahadur Singh against whom also a common inquiry was held and who was held equally responsible for the loss of file and on him a minor penalty was imposed. The file of suit No. 17/1972 was sent in railway parcel with receipt from Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur to the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bundi. The said bitty along with intimation about the railway parcel was received in the office of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bundi and the petitioner was then posted in the process serving department. The receipt and despatch clerk to the office of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bundi handed over a letter as well as the aforesaid bilty to the petitioner for being given to the Nazir so that the Nazir may make arrangements to collect the railway parcel from the railways. The petitioner is said to have been negligent in his duties and did not hand over the bitty and letter to the Nazir as a result of which the railway parcel containing the record of the aforesaid civil suit No. 17/72 could not be received by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bundi. As per the practice of the railways and as required under the rules, a notice was given by the railway authorities on 18th June 1976 under registered A.D. letter calling upon the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge to receive the railway parcel or else if it the delivery was not taken within the prescribed time, it shall be auctioned. It appears that one Bahadur Singh, L.D.C. in the then court of Additional District & Sessions Judge received the aforesaid registered notice but failed to give it to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge or to any concerned officer and result was that the time prescribed in the notice expired and the bag containing the record of the above numbered civil suit was destroyed. 5. 5. It was decided to initiate a disciplinary enquiry under Rule 10 C.C.A. Rules against the petitioner and one Ratan Prakash was appointed as Inquiry Officer, but later on Shri J.S. Garg was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Shri Garg found that beside the petitioner, Bahadur Singh was also responsible and, there,fore, orders were sought from the High Court to start a joint inquiry against the petitioner and Bahadur Singh. The High Court under its order dated 1st May 1979 ordered that a joint inquiry may be initiated by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bundi against the petitioner and Bahadur Singh as the charges against both of them are connected. The High Court further said that as and when inquiry is completed, the enquiry officer will submit the enquiry report both to the District and Sessions Judge, Kota and District and Sessions Judge, Bundi for taking necessary action against the officials under their respective judge-ship according to rules. 6. After the aforesaid order it appears that the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bundi as per directions, of the Rajasthan High Court under its order ordered initiation of the joint inquiry against the petitioner and Bahadur Singh and appointed Atul Kumar Jain as, enquiry officer. The said inquiry officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bundi. The Disciplinary Authority on considering the report was of the opinion that a penalty of removal from service should be inflicted on the petitioner and, therefore, issued a show cause notice about the proposed penalty. The petitioner showed cause and the learned Disciplinary Authority under order dated 21st May 1980 imposed a penalty of remove] from service with immediate effect as stated earlier and further observed that it will not be disqualification for future employment. 7. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been contravention of Rule 18 of the C.C.A. Rules. The contention of learned counsel is that in breath of the above rule that there should be one Disciplinary Authority for the purpose ,of common enquiry and in this case there were two Disciplinary Authorities. Mr. 7. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been contravention of Rule 18 of the C.C.A. Rules. The contention of learned counsel is that in breath of the above rule that there should be one Disciplinary Authority for the purpose ,of common enquiry and in this case there were two Disciplinary Authorities. Mr. Rastogi learned counsel for the High Court on the other hand contends that there is no bar that there should be one enquiry officer who can make a common enquiry and thereafter there may be two disciplinary authorities who ma .y take decisions in accordance with law. A perusal of Rule 18 of the C.C.A. Rules will show that it is attracted or can be attracted only in a case where the evidence which )is likely to come is common and the incident/incidents in relation to which the inquiry is/are made are almost the same. In the instant case the inquiry was in relation to the loss of railway parcel of civil suit No. 17/72 of the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bundi and, therefore, there can be no dispute that ;i was a case where joint inquiry could have been initiated. Rule 18 of the C.C.A. Rules provide that when two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the Government or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding. But sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 makes it clear that any such order shall specify:- (i) the authority which may function as the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of such common proceedings; (ii) the penalties specified i n rule 14 which such Disciplinary Authority shall be competent to impose; and (iii) whether the procedure. prescribed in rules 16 or 17 may be followed in the proceeding. 8. The aforesaid orders are necessary to attract Rule 18 of the C.C.A.Rules. prescribed in rules 16 or 17 may be followed in the proceeding. 8. The aforesaid orders are necessary to attract Rule 18 of the C.C.A.Rules. A perusal of the order dated 1st may 1979 of the Rajasthan High Court, informing the District & Sessions Judge, Bundi that he has been directed that departmental enquiry may be initiated by him against the petitioner and Bahadur Singh show that it has not been specified therein as to the penalties specified in rule 14 and whether the procedure prescribe I under Rule 16 or 17 may be followed or not, it is lacking in the order of the Rajas ,than High Court and it does not appear to be as required under Rule 18 of the C.C.A. Rules. But it cannot be said that it has caused any prejudice to the petitioner. So far as the petitioner is concerned, admittedly the District & Sessions Judge, Bundi was the Disciplinary Authority. Generally Rule 18 of the C.C.A. Rule will be attracted in such a situation where there are two disciplinary authorities of the Government servants but the nature of enquiry is such that the charges are identical, they related to the same subject matter, evidence likely to be produced is common and, therefore, such authority who may be competent to inflict penalty as provided under Rule 14 or 17 of the C.C.A. Rules as the case may be, may be appointed to function as Disciplinary Authority, for the purpose of common proceeding. But at the same time, it appears that even if there are two disciplinary authorities there is no bar to appoint any one of them for the purpose of common enquiry and in that case after making an enquiry, the enquiry officer will have to submit his report to the disciplinary authority who will be the competent to award the penalties provided under Rules 14 & 15 of the C.C.A.Rules as the case may be. Therefore, it can be said that under the order of the Rajasthan High Court, the District & Sessions Judge, Bundi was appointed a common enquiry officer who made the enquiry and thereafter, as directed by the Rajasthan High Court submitted his report to the District and Sessions Judge, Bundi as well as District and Sessions Judge, Kota. So far as the employees under their judge-ships namely the petitioner and Bahadur Singh were concerned. So far as the employees under their judge-ships namely the petitioner and Bahadur Singh were concerned. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of removal from service so far as the petitioner is concerned, whereas the disciplinary authority (District & Sessions Judge, Kota) is concerned he imposed a penalty of censure on Bahadur Singh. Thus, so far as this argument of the learned counsel that there has been contravention of Rule 18 of the C.C.A.Rules deserve no merit as aforesaid. 9. Coming to the second submission of the learned counsel that the appeal was disposed of by a non-speaking order. On behalf of the respondents the order passed in appeal had been filed as Annex.R-1 and a perusal of it will show that it was communicated to the petitioner. It can, therefore, be said that the appeal was disposed of by a speaking order. 10. Coming to the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the case of the petitioner was almost identical with the case of Bahadur Singh, the petitioner has been discriminated in as much as Bahadur Singh has been left out with a censure whereas a severe penalty of removal from service has been inflicted on the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that at any rate a penalty imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate and excessive looking to the nature of misconduct. It will appear from the enquiry report of the enquiry officer that even Bahadur Singh was held responsible for the loss of the railway parcel. Rather Bahadur Singh appears to have been more- responsible because when the railway authority gave a notice that parcel should be taken and in this regard a registered notice was received by Bahadur Singh' and it is as a result of negligence of Bahadur Singh the railway parcel could not be collected and was destroyed. If Bahadur Singh would not have been negligent, had he informed the then Additional District and. Sessions Judge, Bundi of the Nazir that such a notice has come, then the railway parcel could have been collected within the prescribed time and the record of civil suit No. 17/1972 would not have been destroyed. If Bahadur Singh would not have been negligent, had he informed the then Additional District and. Sessions Judge, Bundi of the Nazir that such a notice has come, then the railway parcel could have been collected within the prescribed time and the record of civil suit No. 17/1972 would not have been destroyed. No doubt the petitioner was also responsible in as much as initially it is he who has received the bilty and the latter intimating that the record of the above numbered civil suit has been remitted by this court, he failed to take appropriate measures and, therefore, no too was negligent. But only if Bahadur Singh, as stated earlier had taken steps or would have intimated about the receipt of the notice that the delivery of the railway parcel should be taken or else it should be auctioned, the record would not have been destroyed. It will appear from the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner before the High Court against the order of the Disciplinary Authority that a grounds was raised that Bahadur Singh was imposed a penalty of removal from service. But surprisingly this ground was not considered. It can, therefore, be said that in respect of the loss of the parcel an enquiry was held against two persons, both were held guilty by the enquiry officer, because there were two disciplinary authorities after considering the report, of the enquiry officer, different punishments were imposed on them. At any rate, looking to the nature of misconduct and more so Bahadur Singh was more responsible for the loss of the parcel, the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect on the petitioner seems to be excessive and dis,proportionate to the nature of the misconduct. I will, therefore, keep the petitioner at par with Bahadur Singh. 11. Consequently, I hereby partly allow this writ petition, set aside the penalty of removal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority (District and Sessions Judge, Bundi) under its order dated 21st May 1980 and confirmed by the High Court under order dated 17th January 1981 and instead of imposing a penalty of removal from service, I impose a penalty of censure on the petitioner. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith. He shall be deemed to continued in service through out and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including financial benefits. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith. He shall be deemed to continued in service through out and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including financial benefits. He will be entitled for financial benefits only on furnishing an affidavit that through out this period he was not in gainful employment. Costs made easy.Writ Petition Allowed - Penalty Modified. *******