JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that entire proceedings held against him in persuance Of a charge- sheet served upon him vide memorandum dated 7.1.1977 be quashed and consequent order Ex.9 dated 29.8.1983 by which punishment of withholding of 10% of the pension for three years, be quashed. 2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner who had been compulsorily retired by orders, dated 22.10.1975, was served with a memo dated 7.1.1977 by which he was intimated that enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the C.C.A.Rules"), is proposed to be held against him. This memo was accompanied with the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations. These charges were as under: "1. That the said Shri Shiv Lahari Sharma while functioning as S.D.M. Alwar took the bribe of Rs.1750/- in a case under 5.145 Cr.P.C. from the party Shri Had Chand Ahir village Chikani to give decision in his favour and when Shri Sharma did not favour Shri Hari Chand an unpleasant event took place on 23.4.73 in the court and he tried to conceal the facts from the notice of the Collector. Thus Shri Sharma committed misconduct as indicated in the enclosed statement of allegations. 2. That the said Shri Shiv Lahari Sharma while functioning as above asked Shri Vinodi lal, U.D.C. (Election) to sit on the dias and do the court work which was irregular because a competent Reader was already available for the court work and it gave the litigant public an impression that Shri Vinodi Lal was close to Shri Sharma which made the capacity of Shri Vinodi lal to bargain for acceptance of bribe for Shri Sharma as indicated in the enclosed statement of allegations". The petitioner submitted written statement of defence to the two charges read with the statement of allegations on 2.3.78. The Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the reply filed and an order was passed on 18.9.78 for holding the joint enquiry under Rule 18 read with Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules against the petitioner as well as one Shri Vinodi Lal, Upper Division Clerk. Department examined 10 witnesses and exhibited as many as 13 documents in support of its case. Department examined 10 witnesses and exhibited as many as 13 documents in support of its case. The petitioner gave a detailed statement on 3.6.80 and on the same day statement of Vinodi Lal U.D.C. was recorded.The Commissioner Departmental Enquiries, Rajasthan who has held the enquiry held the charges proved and submitted the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. A punishment of with-holding 20% of the pension for a period of five years was proposed and notice to this effect was given to the petitioner on 30.6.81 to which the petitioner replied on 18.7.81. Opinion of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission was sought as contemplated by the Rules and on reference made by the Government the Public Service Commission concluded that on close examination of the contentions raised by the petitioner and on the basis of the relevant record it was not proved that illegal gratification was taken by the petitioner. Public Service Com-mission came to the conclusion that the entire edifice of the charge about collusion between the petitioner and Vinodi lal crumbles down and the benefit of doubt was extended to the petitioner. However, in the next breath the Commission recommended a lesser penalty. i.e. reduction of 10% pension for a period of three years. The Disciplinary Authority on merits did not agree with the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, however, it concurred with it in conclusion about the infliction of penalty and reduced the same vide the impugned order. The petitioner's submission in this writ petition is that reply filed by the petitioner on 2.3.78 was not at all taken into consideration before passing the orders about holding the joint enquiry. It was submitted that there is difference between the Government and the Governor and the order regarding holding joint enquiry under Rule 18 of the C.C.A. Rules is required to be passed by the Governor himself who became the Disciplinary, Authority. He was required to apply his own mind to come to the conclusion as to whether there was sufficient material to frame the charges. It is submitted that the charges which have been framed and served on the petitioner along with the statement of allegations and the memo dated 7.1.77 are not signed by the Governor and, therefore, the entire enquiry .is illegal. It is submitted that the charges which have been framed and served on the petitioner along with the statement of allegations and the memo dated 7.1.77 are not signed by the Governor and, therefore, the entire enquiry .is illegal. It is then submitted that a perusal of the advice of Rajasthan Public Service Commission shows that there was no material on record to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against him. The Public Service Commission had recommended that benefit of doubt should be extended to the petitioner. It is then submitted that show cause notice Ex.7 is against the spirit of Rule 16(10) of the C.C.A. Rules and further that even the finding of the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 16(9) of the C.C.A. Rules does not show proper application of mind. 3. The contentions raised by the petitioner are opposed by the State and it is submitted that a perusal of Ex.1 itself shows that the said memorandum dated 7.1.77 was signed 'by the order of the Governor' by the Deputy Secretary to the Government and the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations are part and parcel of the said memorandum, therefore, there is no force in the argument that the Governor has not applied his mind as required by law. The submission is that the order regarding holding a joint enquiry had also been passed by the order of the Governor and, therefore, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that there is violation of Rule 16(8) of the C.C.A. Rules. It is then submitted that the petitioner has participated in the enquiry and having obtained an order on merits cannot raise all these technical grounds in extra ordinary jurisdiction. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed even the written arguments which had been considered by the Disciplinary Authority as is clearly borne out from the detailed order of the Disciplinary Authority which runs in about 14 full scape typed pages. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed even the written arguments which had been considered by the Disciplinary Authority as is clearly borne out from the detailed order of the Disciplinary Authority which runs in about 14 full scape typed pages. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner has relied on a decision of this court in Anil Kumar Mathur v. State of Rajasthan and Others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.212 of 1986 and other four writ petitions decided on 18.2.1987 wherein it was held that the order under Rule 18 of the C.C.A. Rules is required to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Governor in case where he is the Disciplinary Authority. In the aforesaid judgment it has been held that under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the C.C.A. Rules where 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 proceedings. Any such order, under sub-rule (2) shall specify the authority which may function as the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of such common proceedings. The petitioner has also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 wherein there Lordships have held that finding of facts recorded by the Enquiry Officer are not binding on the Government and the court can also look into the question about the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority if public servant is able to satisfy the court that ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings is based on no evidence. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the entire record. 5. It may be mentioned at the outset that jurisdiction of this court in dealing with the cases of Departmental Enquiries is very limited. This court would not look into the question of facts unless it is shown that the findings are based on absolutely no evidence or that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or that the procedure laid down under the rules has not been properly followed or that the proceedings arc without jurisdiction. This court would not look into the question of facts unless it is shown that the findings are based on absolutely no evidence or that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or that the procedure laid down under the rules has not been properly followed or that the proceedings arc without jurisdiction. A perusal of the record placed before this court in this case does not show any informity of the type referred to above. Regarding the first submission of the petitioner that charge-sheet has not been signed by the Governor and that the case is covered by the decision of this court in Anil Kumar Mathur's case, is not based on a proper reading of the aforesaid judgment. Learned brother deciding the case himself in his judgment has relied on an earlier decision of this court in Durga Das v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1314/1972 decided on 2.9.1974 and observed as under: "A look at the charge-sheet filed in few of the cases will show that, charge-sheet has been signed by Dy.Secretary and it is not mentioned therein 'by order of the Governor'. That charge- sheet was only served before the order under Rule 18(2) of the CCA Rules came to be made. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the CCA Rules where 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 proceedings. Any such order under sub,rule(2) shall specify the authority which may function as the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of such common proceedings". Referring to Durga Dan's case again learned Judge observed that there is nothing to show that the Disciplinary Authority ever adopted the charge-sheet earlier issued or afresh applied his mind. Thus, it can be said that once it is decided to hold joint enquiry under rule 18(1) and the Disciplinary Authority is appointed, it is that authority alone who is apply its mind, serve a charge sheet unless it adopts the one already issued after applying its mind. Thus, it can be said that once it is decided to hold joint enquiry under rule 18(1) and the Disciplinary Authority is appointed, it is that authority alone who is apply its mind, serve a charge sheet unless it adopts the one already issued after applying its mind. In the instant case the memorandum dated 7.1.1977 has been signed by the Dy.Secretary by orders of the Governor and in the memorandum there is mention of the accompanied charge-sheet as well as the statement of allegations which have been signed by the Dy.Secretary to the Government. Since there is reference to both these documents in the memorandum there is no scope for argument that the same were not signed by orders of the Governor.Forwarding letter or the memorandum indicates that the same is signed by the orders of the Governor and is accompanied with the enclosures a reference to which is mentioned therein, there is no room to doubt that the enclosures have been sent without application of mind. Besides this, both the documents Ex.4 and 5 by which Disciplinary Authority has appointed the Enquiry Officer and laid down the procedure, have also been signed by the Deputy Secretary by orders of the Governor. In reference to the charge sheet submitted there is enough compliance of the relevant rules and the argument raised on the basis of Anil Kumar's judgment, is of no avail to the petitioner. Besides this, the petitioner has participated in the enquiry which is a protracted enquiry. As is apparent from its record no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in any manner, as full opportunity has been given to him to place his case which has received the apt consideration of the Authorities concerned. Regarding the submission of the petitioner that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in its advice has given contradictory findings that at one stage it has found that the involvement of the delinquent officer has not been proved and he is entitled to benefit of doubt, yet in another breath it has recommended the infliction of penalty.It may be mentioned that there is certainly inconsistency in the order of the advice of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission has categorically held as under: "The entire edifice of the charge about collusion between Shri Vinodilal and Shri Sharma in unauthorisedly entrusting the work of Reader to Vinodilal and accepting the illegal gratification by the later with the connivance of the fanner crumbles down on the same ground. It could as well be considered a sole and independent act of Shri Vinodilal to feather his own nest to, which Shri Sharma delinquent officer No. 1 has not been proved to be a party". In view of the above observations the Rajastban Public Service Commission felt that benefit of doubt goes to Shri Shiv Lahari Sharma delinquent officer No. 1 and it would meet the ends of justice if a lesser penalty as awarded to him. From the above reading it is apparent that once benefit of doubt was extended there was no occasion for advising the reduction of penalty. Penalty could only be proposed in case the charge was held to be proved but the Public Service Commission has not considered that aspect of the matter. The Disciplinary Authority after its advice considered the whole case afresh and passed a very detailed order discussing all the aspects of the matter and came to its own conclusion regarding petitioner's participation with Shri Vinodilal and held the charges established. But from the perusal of this detailed order it could not be made out that but for the quantum of penalty the Disciplinary Authority considered the reasonings given by the Public Service Commission. The purpose of the advice of the Public Service Commission is that the Government calls for a sound council of an independent body which must have the bearing, while passing the final order. The order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.8.1983 is totally silent on facts about consideration of the advice of the Public Service Commission and as we have stated above the advice about reducing the penalty is wholly inconsistent with the findings arrived at on merits. In this view of the matter in our opinion the order of the Disciplinary Authority suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record to the extent that the advice of the Public Service Commission has not been properly taken note of and this lapse on the part of the Disciplinary Authority vitiates the impugned order. 6. In this view of the matter in our opinion the order of the Disciplinary Authority suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record to the extent that the advice of the Public Service Commission has not been properly taken note of and this lapse on the part of the Disciplinary Authority vitiates the impugned order. 6. We need not go in any other question in view of the fact that the orders stand vitiated on the aforesaid ground alone. 7. The result of the above discussion is that this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 29.8.1983 is set aside.Writ Petition Allowed. *******