JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Ramdeo Singh was appointed as Traffic Trainee by the Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Corporation'). He joined duty on 1.3.76 in pursuance of the appointment order dated 27.2.1976. His service was terminated in January, 1977 by the Regional Manager, Jaipur, but he was reinstated in service on 30.8.1977 on the basis of representation made to the General Manager of the Corporation. By order dated 16.5.1979, the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in pursuance of the order of the General Manager dated 14.6.78. A memorandum dated 14.12.1979 was served upon the petitioner by the Regional Manager of the Corporation at Sikar, while the petitioner was posted as Conductor in Jhunjhunu Depot. Petitioner was called upon to show cause in respect of the allegation levelled against him with reference to Standing Order No. 34 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Workers Employees & Workshop Standing Orders, 1965. This charge sheet was signed by the Regional Manager of the Corporation. By another order of the same date, Shri M.M. Pareek, Deputy Manager was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet and denied the allegation that he was carrying passengers without ticket. He stated that he was issuing tickets to the petitioners and when the bus had reached Pura-ki-dhani, the passengers who were to get down, they got down and the vehicle again started. Petitioner and other passengers were quite unaware that .3 boys had caught hold of the ledder, which goes to the roof of the bus. The vehicle was intercepted by the Inspectors of the Corporation and the 3 boys who had climbed on the back of the bus wanted to run away but they were caught and penalties were charges from them and tickets were issued to them. It was also stated, by the petitioner that there was heavy rush of passengers due to fare of Rani Sati at Jhunjhunu. Vehicles were over loaded. The vehicle in which the petitioner was Conductor was over loaded. Some passengers were issued tickets through the Booking and the petitioner was issuing tickets to the passengers who had not taken tickets from the booking office. Just before 3 Kms. from jhunjhunu the vehicles No. 7466 and 6012 had break down there due to mechanical defects. The vehicle in which the petitioner was Conductor was over loaded. Some passengers were issued tickets through the Booking and the petitioner was issuing tickets to the passengers who had not taken tickets from the booking office. Just before 3 Kms. from jhunjhunu the vehicles No. 7466 and 6012 had break down there due to mechanical defects. Passengers of these two vehicles had gone to the Depot Office to make report. The Drivers of these two vehicles asked the passengers of these two vehicles to board the bus, which the }petitioner was carrying. The vehicle was checked, but no passenger was found without ticket. However, subsequently two lady passengers were taken to be travelling without tickets. Tickets were issued to them from the petitioner's book and a remark was given, for which the petitioner was not at all responsible. 2. The Inquiry Officer did not conduct any inquiry. He did not record evidence. Subsequently, Shri Ladu Ram Verma was appointed as Inquiry Officer and he seems to have submitted some inquiry report. The Regional Manager, Sikar by an order dated 26.5.1980 imposed penalty of removal from service against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted an appeal against this order before the authorities at Jaipur and the same was dismissed by the Additional General Manager (Personnel) Jaipur vide his order dated 9.11.1981. In this order, the Additional General Manager has placed reliance on the past conduct of the petitioner and has recorded that the petitioner had been warned four times on previous occasions and his annual grade increment had also been stopped. A review petition was also filed by the petitioner before the General Manager, but the same was also dismissed by communication dated 13.12.82. 3. An Application dated 15.1.1983 was moved by the petitioner with the request for supply of copy of inquiry report. This application moved to the General Manager. He had also sent a copy of this application by registered post to the Regional Manager, Sikar with the request to make available copy of the inquiry report. According to the petitioner, a copy of the inquiry report has not been made available to him despite his written request. This application moved to the General Manager. He had also sent a copy of this application by registered post to the Regional Manager, Sikar with the request to make available copy of the inquiry report. According to the petitioner, a copy of the inquiry report has not been made available to him despite his written request. Petitioner has also stated that the allegations, which constituted basis of the charges levelled against him in the departmental inquiry were also the subject matter of the .criminal case No. 1499/79 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur and he was prosecuted under Section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (W.T.T.) Act. Petitioner was acquitted by judgment dated 30th April, 1988. A finding was recorded that the petitioner had neither acted with malice nor there was any deliberate act of negligence on his part. 4. Petitioner has assailed the order of punishment on various grounds enumerated in para 11 of the writ petition. It has been asserted that the order has been passed by an authority which was not competent to pass such order. He had been appointed by the General Manager and the order of removal from service was passed by the Regional Manager. The Regional Manager was not competent to pass the order of removal of the petitioner from service. It has further been stated that the departmental inquiry was not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. His reply had also not been considered before holding him guilty of the charges levelled against him. He was not furnished with the copy of the inquiry report. He was not given any opportunity to make his representation against the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The Regional Manager had not applied his mind before passing the order of punishment. The order of punishment does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion of guilt of the petitioner and, therefore, it is not-speaking order. Further submission of the petitioner that foundation of, the charges levelled against him also constituted the basis of prosecution of the petitioner in the competent court and once he had been acquitted by a competent court in respect of the same charges, he could not be punished on the basis of departmental inquiry. Further submission of the petitioner that foundation of, the charges levelled against him also constituted the basis of prosecution of the petitioner in the competent court and once he had been acquitted by a competent court in respect of the same charges, he could not be punished on the basis of departmental inquiry. Appellate authority had seriously erred in placing reliance on the past punishment and adverse record in disposing of the appeal of the petitioner. 5. No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents and none has appeared to argue the case on behalf of the respondents. 6. Mrs. Namita Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner has, in the first instance, argued that the inquiry has been held against the petitioner in slipshod manner and the Regional Manager passed the order of punishment on the basis of findings recorded.by the inquiry officer and the record of inquiry. However, before passing the order of punishment, the Regional Manager did not give copy of inquiry report to the petitioner and did not give an opportunity to the petitioner of making his representation against the findings recorded by the inquiry officer. He has merely recorded his conclusion regarding guilt of the petitioner in respect of the charges levelled against him. According to her, the provisions of the Standing Order do not exclude the application of principles of natural justice. According to the requirements of the principles of natural justice, it was obligatory for the competent authority to have made available to the petitioner all adverse material which was sought to be relied upon against him by the Regional Manager, Sikar before passing the impugned order. Petitioner should have been made aware of that adverse material and should have been given an opportunity to submit his explanation. She has placed reliance on the decision in Ram Singh v. R.S.R.T.C. (1986 Judi. Surveyor 129) , and on Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1990(4) IT (SC)456) . She has also placed reliance on Tej Karan v. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1285/85) decided on 8.2.1991 and Khaleel Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6517/90) decided on 22.2.1991 . 7. A perusal of Ex. 7 shows that in the first paragraph, the Regional Manager has recorded the allegations levelled against the petitioner. v. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6517/90) decided on 22.2.1991 . 7. A perusal of Ex. 7 shows that in the first paragraph, the Regional Manager has recorded the allegations levelled against the petitioner. In the second paragraph he has recorded that Shri Ladu Ram Verma was appointed as Inquiry Officer to hold inquiry in the matter. He has than recorded that he has carefully considered the inquiry report and other connected papers submitted by the inquiry officer and has reached to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are fully proved and that his previous record is also not good. In the last paragraph, he has recorded the order of removal of the petitioner from service in exercise of power conferred by Standing Order 36(8) read with Standing Order No. 34(1). It is thus clear that the petitioner had not been furnished with the copy of inquiry report before passing the order of punishment. He was not made aware of the contents of the report submitted by the inquiry officer, in which findings adverse to the petitioner had been recorded. He was also not made aware of the reasons showing application of mind by the inquiry officer for holding him guilty. The order dated 26.5.1980 does not contain any reason on the basis of which the Regional Manager has reached to the conclusion that the charges are fully proved against the petitioner. Obviously, the Regional Manager has based his conclusion on the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the connected record. He had thus relied upon and made the inquiry report as basis of his conclusion. In the decisions referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case and Tej Karan's case (supra), after a detailed discussions of the various provisions of law and the principles of natural justice it has been concluded that the inquiry report constituted material, which is at times adverse to the employee. After receipt of inquiry report, the competent authority has to apply its mind and record its finding. It is open to the competent authority to agree with the findings or not to agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. In case it agrees with the finding, it is free to pass an order of punishment on the basis of such findings. It is open to the competent authority to agree with the findings or not to agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. In case it agrees with the finding, it is free to pass an order of punishment on the basis of such findings. However, before such findings contained in the report of the inquiry officer are acted upon by the competent authority, it is obligatory for the competent authority to make the delinquent employee aware of the contents of the inquiry report or the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and give him an opportunity to make his/her submissions with reference to such findings. That is necessary for compliance of the requirements of the principles of natural justice. Compliance of these principles of natural justice is implicit in every quasi judicial action unless either by express provision of law or by compelling implication the theory of exclusion of principles of natural justice can be applied. In my opinion, the provisions of Standing Order do not make express exclusion of principles of natural justice nor it is possible to read as implicit in the scheme of the standing orders relating to disciplinary actions against the employees of the Corporation. Thus, the order of punishment passed against the petitioner is vitiated and is liable to be declared as void only on the ground that the same has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. So far as the present case is concerned, there is an additional reason why this should be done. After passing of the order of punishment, the petitioner had submitted an application for supply of copy of the inquiry report and without any justification the respondents have withheld supply of copy of inquiry report to the petitioner. What the respondents should have done, was to give atleast a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner after passing the order of punishment, so that he could have effectively challenged the order of punishment before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of punishment is non-speaking order. According to her, one of the facets of the principles of natural justice is that the order of punishment which is passed in quasi judicial proceedings, must contain reasons. 8. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of punishment is non-speaking order. According to her, one of the facets of the principles of natural justice is that the order of punishment which is passed in quasi judicial proceedings, must contain reasons. Mere recording of conclusions is not sufficient for compliance of the requirement of principles of natural justice. 9. A perusal of order, Exhibit-7 shows that Regional Manager, Sikar had merely recorded one line conclusion that after careful perusal of the inquiry report and the connected papers, he has reached to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner delinquent are fully proved. The order does not indicate any reason, which could show application of mind and which could disclose mental application of the competent authority to the contents of the inquiry report and connected record. This is possible only if specific reasons for recording finding of guilt had been recorded by the competent authority and communicated the same to the petitioner. Mere recording of conclusion is not the sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice so far as requirement of passing of.speaking order is concerned. The law relating to speaking order is now well settled by the Judge - made law during last more than 30 years. It is now well settled that all quasi judicial orders, which affect an employee of the Government, statutory bodies or public bodies must contain reasons and bald conclusion of guilt recorded in disciplinary proceedings cannot be considered as sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice, as has been held in State of Rajasthan v. Amolak Chand (1983 R.L.R. 246) . This principle has been accepted and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court and I am in full agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench. 10. Third submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Regional Manager has relied upon the previous record of the petitioner in imposing penalty of removal from service. The petitioner was not given any notice by any authority that his previous record will be taken into consideration while imposing punishment of removal from service. Foundation of this argument lies in the plea that the principles of natural justice require that no adverse material should be relied upon against a delinquent employee, of which he has no notice. The petitioner was not given any notice by any authority that his previous record will be taken into consideration while imposing punishment of removal from service. Foundation of this argument lies in the plea that the principles of natural justice require that no adverse material should be relied upon against a delinquent employee, of which he has no notice. In State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda), AIR 1964 SC 506 it has clearly been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that previous record of delinquent employee is taken to be considered for imposing punishment, notice of such previous record must be given to the delinquent before the same is taken note of or is considered. In my opinion, there is a clear violation of this principle in the present case because admittedly, the petitioner was not given any notice of the previous adverse record, which was relied upon by the Regional Manager while imposing punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner. 11. Regarding appellate order, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the same is an order of affirmance passed by the appellate authority and once it is found that the original order is bad on account of the same having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the appellate order is also liable to be quashed. Her second submission is that the appellate authority has also relied upon various previous punishment in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. Therefore, both limpa of arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are correct. Evidently, tilt% appellate authority has affirmed the order of punishment and when the order of punishment has been found to be vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice,the appellate order automatically stands vitiated. The appellate authority has placed reliance on 4 witnesses, one punishment of stoppage of one grade increment imposed prior to initiation of impugned departmental action. No notice was given to the petitioner regarding this adverse material before the appellate authority had placed reliance on the same In dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. 12. As far as review order is concerned, I find that the order has in fact not been communicated to the petitioner. What has been communicated to the petitioner is that his review petition has been rejected. This communication is arbitrary and creptic to the core. 12. As far as review order is concerned, I find that the order has in fact not been communicated to the petitioner. What has been communicated to the petitioner is that his review petition has been rejected. This communication is arbitrary and creptic to the core. It is totally silent about indicating application of mind by the Reviewing Authority while rejecting the review petition of the petitioner. In Kartar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1980 R.L.R. 330) , a learned Single Judge has held that even a review order passed under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 must be an speaking order. Order, Annexure-9 fails to satisfy the zest principle laid down in Kartar Singh's case and in my opinion that order cannot be sustained. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order of punishment dated 26.5.80 as well as the orders of appellate authority and the Reviewing Authority are quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.Since none appeared on behalf of the corporation, costs made easy.Writ Petition Allowed. *******