JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up before the Court in connection with S.B. Civil Misc. Second Stay Application No. 3819/92 filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the parties submit that since point involved is a short one, the writ petition itself can be disposed of finally. I find that this submission is correct. I have, therefore, proceeded to hear the writ petition itself on merits. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner S.L. Setia was posted as Assistant Engineer in Sub-Division -III of Division VIII of Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna during the year 1977. Gopi Ram Goyal was the Executive Engineer, under whom the petitioner was serving. One N.C. Garg was Junior Engineer under the petitioner. Likewise, one V.N. Sharma was also Junior Engineer under the petitioner. It is alleged that N.C. Garg in collusion with V.N. Sharma mis-appropriated 3375 bags of cement entrusted to them and the petitioner failed to discharge his duties as mentioned in Rules 55 and Rules 195 to 199 of PWF & AR and due to carelessness and negligence the alleged misappropriation was possible. 3. It appears that originally disciplinary proceedings against Gopi Ram Goyal and the petitioner S.K. Setia were commenced under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958). Later on, proceedings under Rule 16 were converted to proceedings under Rule 17 of the aforesaid Rules. 4. Following charge was framed against the petitioner:-"S.L. Setia, Assistant Engineer:-Shri S.L. Setia, Assistant Engineer while in Sub-Division III of Division VIII during the year 1977 failed to discharge his duties as mentioned in Rules 55 and Rules 195 to 199 of PWF & AR due to his carelessness and negligence, Shri N.C. Garg, Junior Engineer mis-appropriated 3375 bags of cement in collusion with Shri V.N. Sharma another Sub-Engineer, thus causing a loss of Rs. 67,500/- to the Government." 5. S.L.Setia submitted a detailed representation, copy of which is Annexing 4. In this explanation S.L.Setia pointed out that under the new accounting procedure, which had become applicable, the petitioner was not responsible for handling of stores or of accounts. 67,500/- to the Government." 5. S.L.Setia submitted a detailed representation, copy of which is Annexing 4. In this explanation S.L.Setia pointed out that under the new accounting procedure, which had become applicable, the petitioner was not responsible for handling of stores or of accounts. According to the new accounting procedure a central store Sub-Division was formed and accounts of stores besides cash and other things were maintained by the Chief Accounts Officers Organisation and for this purpose Divisional Accountant along with Upper Division clerks were placed at the disposal of the local Senior Accounts Officers in the Chief Accounts Officers Organisation. The process of physical verification of stores/stock-taking was also put under the charge of the respective Senior Accounts Officers of the organisation. "The Material-At-site Registers" were continued to be maintained by the concerned junior engineers but their "accounting" was put under the charge of the Senior Accounts Officers, and hence the petitioner was not at all responsible for supervision of accounts or stores. In this connection he quoted 5.3(c), 5.3(e), 5.18, 5.21 of the relevant Rules. He also pointed out that in fact there was no embazzlement of 3375 bags of cement as alleged. There was only a deficiency of 370 bags of cement and this deficiency did not occur due to supervisory negligence or carelessness on the part of the petitioner. He referred to the correspondence which took place between him and the Junior Engineer V.N. Sharma in this regard. He also referred to the findings of the disciplinary authority with regard to the alleged charge of mis-appropriation of N.C. Garg, wherein it was found that no case of mis-appropriation had been made against Mr. Garg. Upon such submissions and various other contentions petitioner pleaded that he was not guilty at all and he could not be punished. By Annexure 4, the disciplinary authority rejected the explanation of the petitioner and held that since the Executive Engineer - Gopi Lal Vyas was guilty of supervisory negligence under Rules 75 to 79 of PWR & AR, the petitioner being his subordinate could not escapee from liability. Upon such findings he found the petitioner guilty and imposed punishment of censure upon the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order Ex.P-5 and it is submitted that explanation of the petitioner has not been considered in the proper perspective at all. Mr. Upon such findings he found the petitioner guilty and imposed punishment of censure upon the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order Ex.P-5 and it is submitted that explanation of the petitioner has not been considered in the proper perspective at all. Mr. K.N. Joshi submits that under the new accounting procedure the petitioner was not liable at all in any way for maintenance of stores and maintenance of accounts. He was responsible only for execution of works and there is no charge against the petitioner that he was guilty of supervisory negligence with regard to execution of works. He submits that the detailed explanation of the petitioner was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary authority in a very casual, cavalier and cursory manner observed that the petitioner could not escape liability when the Executive Engineer was guilty of supervisory negligence. He submits that under Rule 17(1)(b) of the CCA Rules, the Disciplinary Authority was bound to take into consideration the representation of the petitioner. It is submitted that casual and cursory reference to the representation without discussing the various points made out by the petitioner could not be construed to mean consideration of his representation by the Disciplinary Authority and on this ground the punishment of censure deserves to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition strenuously and he has urged that once the Executive Engineer was held responsible for supervisory negligence, his Assistant Engineer was automatically responsible for such supervisory negligence and hence the Disciplinary Authority did not commit any mistake in holding the petitioner guilty. It is submitted that it was not necessary to consider the representation of the petitioner in details and it was sufficient if the Disciplinary Authority had referred to the representation and had rejected it. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record and I have already set out the charge which had been levelled against the petitioner. The reply of the charge or the representation submitted by the petitioner runs into as many as 12 pages. I have already extracted the gist of the reply submitted by the petitioner. 9. I may straight-forward state that the Disciplinary Authority has not found petitioner guilty of breach of Rule 55 and Rules 195 to 199 of PWF & AR at all. I have already extracted the gist of the reply submitted by the petitioner. 9. I may straight-forward state that the Disciplinary Authority has not found petitioner guilty of breach of Rule 55 and Rules 195 to 199 of PWF & AR at all. Annexure 5 does not say that petitioner failed to discharge his duties as mentioned in Rule 55 and Rule 195 to 199 of PWF & Ar. Annexure 5 does not even hint to any such failure of duties on the part of the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has not considered the contention of the petitioner that under the new accounting procedure, petitioner was equally not shall responsible for maintenance of stores and accounts. He has not even causally or cursorily manner discussed this aspect of the matter. The relevant provisions of the new accounting procedure were reproduced in the reply of the petitioner. They may be profitable quoted here:- "5.3(c) As a general rule, the Civil and Mechanical divisions of Rajasthan Canal Project will not procure and stores except the items of store for which exemption has been given in Rajasthan Canal Stock Accounts Rules. They will, therefore, obtain supply of the required items of stores from the Central Stores as direct charge to works. Thus the Central Stores Division only and the other Divisions in respect of non-centralised articles will operate upon suspense head "Stock other sub-Heads', and all other Divisions will charge the costs of stores direct to works or manufacture accounts as the case may be. The Chief Engineer with the approval of the Rajasthan Canal Board, may, however, allow certain divisions to keep certain restricted items required for daily use as reserve stock for a period not exceeding 30 days consumption." 5.3(e) The Chief Accounts Officers or his authorised Sr. Accounts Officer/Accounts Officer shall conduct surmise physical verification of stores and report results to the Chairman, Rajasthan Canal Board through the Financial Advisor with a copy to the Chief Engineer. These surpriseed verification will be in addition to the Annual Physical verification to be arranged by the Chief Accounts Officer.5.18 Issue is Stores: (a) Issue of stores in all cases should be made on the authority of an indent in Form No. R.C.P.-S-14. The indent should be prepared in indelible ink or with a copying pencil, in quintuplicate, by carbon process neatly and clearly as all subsequent accounting depends on it. The indent should be prepared in indelible ink or with a copying pencil, in quintuplicate, by carbon process neatly and clearly as all subsequent accounting depends on it. 5.21(1) The indents will be prepared in gnadruplicate their purpose and ultimate location will be as under:-1st copy. will be sent of Field Accounts Officer immediately for entry in stores priced ledger.2nd copy. will be retained by the Store Keeper issuing the stores.3rd copy. will be sent to the Field Accounts Officer daily with the daily list of issue indent by the Division. There it will be priced and sent tri-monthly to the respective Indenter (Executive Engineer concerned) alongwith RCPS - 16 and RCPS -17 verification and posting daily consumption accounts maintained by him.4th copy. will be handed over by the stores-keeper (Issue Section) to the Indentor or his authorised messenger alongwith Gate Pass for Note of "checked" on the Indent by Security Officer.5th copy. will remain with the original indentor for his daily lists of indents in prescribed form."He then narrated the factual position with regard to the alleged embezzlement said to have been made by N.C. Garg and V.N. Sharma. Explanation with regard to this aspect are as follows:- "(a) Whether Shri N.C. Garg, issued 3375 bags of cement to his counterpart in the same Sub Division Shri V.N. Sharma on the authority of two indents dated 2.10.77 and 24.10.77. The issue of the stated number of cement bags by Shri N.C. Garg to his counter-part Shri V.N. Sharma i.e. 2375 bags, vide indent No. Nil dated 2.10.77 and 100 bags, vide indent No. nil dated 24.10.77 has become an indisputable fact in the details enquiry that has been conducted under Rule 16 of the Rules in a separate memo of charges/allegations served under No. F(1) (159) Karmik/A-III/83 part 8 dated 17.12.83 upon Sarvashri N.C. Garg and V.N. Sharma, Junior Engineers with final orders passed on 17.3.89. (b) Whether the stock-register of V.N.Sharma of the period corresponding to two indents dated 2.10.77 and 24.10.77 does not contain any entry in respect of 3375 bags of cement transferred to him by Shri N.C. Garg ? My explanation to this part of the allegation deserves to be read and examined with reference to the explanation given under Part -'C' below where detailed explanation in this regard has already been furnished. My explanation to this part of the allegation deserves to be read and examined with reference to the explanation given under Part -'C' below where detailed explanation in this regard has already been furnished. A pertinent question may arise that why Shri V.N. Sharma did not enter 300 cement bags from out of 3375 bags of cement which figure is duly admitted in the Government order dated 17.3.89 in his stock register and instead accounted for the same in his "MATERIAL STOCK ACCOUNT", clarification in that regard is given with specific reference to para 5.3 (c) of Chapter 5 STORES' of the 'NAP' reproduced above, where it has specifically been mentioned that all Divisions at that time were made to charge the cost of stores direct to works of manufacture accounts, as the case may be and not in the stock registers. Apparently, although Shri V.N. Sharma had not made entry with respect to receipt by him of 3375 bags of cement in his stock register 3000 from out of total 3375 bags of cement are admitted to have been entered in and to have taken on 'material-At-Site-Account." About the difference of 375 bags of cement, I have elaborated the relevant position elsewhere in this explanation and that is that of placing the accounting of N.A.S. Registers" outside the purview of the Division/Sub Division and entrusting the same to the Chief Accounts Officers' organisation on implementation of the 'N.A.P.' w.e.f. 1.5.77. (c) Whether in the 'Material-At-Site-account', Shri V.N. Sharma, there was no entry of receipt of 3375 Nos. of cement bags ? Against contention in last but one para of the statement of allegation that in the N.A.S. Account of Shri V.N. Sharma, Junior Engineer, there is no entry of the receipt of 3375 nos. bags of cement, the observations in the aforesaid order dated 17.3.89 is that Shri V.N. Sharma had submitted to the satisfaction of learned Inquiring Authority 'Material-At-site-Account' with regard to 3000 out of 3375 bags of cement, received by him on two indents dated 2.10.77 and 24.10.77 from Shri N.C. Garg, Junior Engineer and there, in fact, was deficiency of 375 bags of cement, which according to said order were held to have been misappropriated by Mr. Sharma. Sharma. Obviously, the allegation that there is no entry of receipt of 3375 bags of cement in the M.A.S. Account of Shri V.N. Sharma, Junior Engineer is substantially proved wrong.About the balance 375 bags of cement the relevant position deserves to be viewed and decided in the light of the fact stated as under:- (i) With the adoption with effect from 1.5.77 of 'N.A.P.' which was in force even in October - 1977, when the transaction of transfer of 3375 bags took place, the entire control of watching the transactions of store articles and controlling the accounting procedure of Material-At--Site-Accounts had been entrusted to the Chief Accounts Officers organisation as per explanation given in the foregoing paragraphs, and, therefore, the allegation of carelessness and negligence of duties on my part is without any justification, whatsoever. (ii) I had at the relevant times made every attempt possible to get the 'Material-At-Site-Accounts' submitted by the Junior Engineers of my Sub Division including Mr. V.N. Sharma. One copy each of the 7 Nos. letters written to them in this regard is attached herewith marking of Annexures done against each letter:- (1) My Letter No. 1715 dated 18.2.78 addressed to the Executive Engineer R.P.C. VIIIth Division. Chhattargarh. ANNEXURE -'A'. (2) My letter No. 1617 dated 14.2.78 addressed to Shri V.C. Sharma, Junior Engineer. Annexure -'B'. (3) My letter No. 1771 dated 2.3.78 addressed to the Executive Engineer, R.C.P. VIIIth Division Chhattargarh. Annexure 'C' (4) My letter No. 46 dated 2.5.78 addressed to the Executive Engineer with copy to the Junior ngineers including Shri N.C. Garg. Annexure 'D'. (5) My letter No. 192-194 dated 29.5.78 addressed to the Executive Engineer with copy to the Junior Engineer. Annexure 'E'. (6) My letter No. 264-71 dated 18.6.78 addressed to Junior Engineer with copy to the Executive Engineer. Annexure -'F'. (7) My letter No. 272-73 dated 18.6.78 addressed to Shri N.C. Garg, Junior Engineer with copy to the Executive Engineer. Annexure -'G'. (d) Whether Sarvashri N.C. Garg and V.C. Sharma the two Junior Engineer had, in collusion with each other misappropriated 3375 bags of cement. It is alleged that N.C. Garg, Junior Engineer misappropriated 3375 No. bags of cement in collusion with his counter-part Shri V.N. Sharma. Annexure -'G'. (d) Whether Sarvashri N.C. Garg and V.C. Sharma the two Junior Engineer had, in collusion with each other misappropriated 3375 bags of cement. It is alleged that N.C. Garg, Junior Engineer misappropriated 3375 No. bags of cement in collusion with his counter-part Shri V.N. Sharma. If this part of the allegation is examined in the light of the enquiry report dated 2.12.1987 of the Commissioner -II, Departmental Enquiries, Rajasthan, Jaipur in case of memo of charges/allegations commonly served upon Sarv. Shri N.C. Garg and V.N. Sharma and the Government order passed in that context on 17.3.89, it would be found established, Sir, that neither Shri N.C. Garg, misappropriated 3375 Nos. of cement bags nor there was any collusion between him and Shri V.N. Sharma in the regard. The relevant protion of the Order dated 17.3.90 is reproduced as under:- "JANCH ADHIKARI NE ANKIT KIYA HAE KE ZAB ISS PARKAR KA KOI INDENT DIYA JATA HAI TO USKI PRATIAN USS TIME STORE KEEPER KO DEE JATI THEE. JAISA KE GVAH SHRI SATIA NE APNE BIANE ME KAHA HAI PER EN DONO EDENTON PER SHRI SHARMA KE SEMENT KO PRAPAT KERNE KE SAMBANDH MEIN HASTAKSHAR UPLABDH HAIN TO SHRI GARG DWARA 3375 CEMENT KE THELLON KA APHARAN KERNE KA KOI MAMLA NAHI BANTA. JANCH ADHIKARI KE UPROKAT VIVECHEN KE ADHAR PER YEH AROP SHRI GARG KE VIRUDH SIDH HNA NAHI MANA JANCH ADHIKARI KE NISHKARSH SAWIKAAT KERNE YOGYA HAI." Obviously, this is even the admission of the Government itself it its order dated 17.3.89 that there was no collusion between the two Junior Engineers with regard to misappropriation of 3375 bags of cement."He then specifically dealt with the charge of alleged negligence on his part. His explanation in this regard is as follows:- "(e) Whether the alleged misappropriation of 3375 bags of cement could take place only because I failed to check the stock registers and MAS Accounts of the abovenamed two junior engineers. Firstly, the alleged misappropriated of 3375 bags of cement has not been proved even against Shri V.N. Sharma, Junior Engineer much less to say about his collusion with Shri N.C. Garg, Junior Engineer in that regard. Firstly, the alleged misappropriated of 3375 bags of cement has not been proved even against Shri V.N. Sharma, Junior Engineer much less to say about his collusion with Shri N.C. Garg, Junior Engineer in that regard. In so far as it respects the balance of 3375 bags of cement which are held in order dated 17.3.89 to have been misappropriated by Shri V.N. Sharma, my explanation is that by reason of the coming into force of the 'NAP' w.e.f. 1.5.77 which was in vogue when the transactions occurred in October - 1977 and even beyond, I had not any control on the keeping of accounts of the N.A.S. accounts." However, all precautions and made efforts to get the NAS Account's prepared from my subordinates in the sub-division. (f) whether I am liable for alleged carelessness and negligence in the matter of misappropriation of 3375 bags of cement causing loss to the Government of Rs. 67,500/- and whether there was failure on my part to discharge duties properly as envisaged in Rules 55 and 195 to 199 of P.W.F. & A.R. Since detailed enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules in the said other case has already been passed and concluded, I can assert without any fear of contradiction that there has, in fact, not been misappropriation of 3375 bags of cement or loss of Rs. 67,500/- to the Government, in consequence about the loss factor it is my respectful submission, Sir, that even the order dated 17.3.89 has not referred to any action having been determined with regard thereto. 67,500/- to the Government, in consequence about the loss factor it is my respectful submission, Sir, that even the order dated 17.3.89 has not referred to any action having been determined with regard thereto. About the misappropriation of 3375 bags of cement by Shri V.N. Sharma, my explanation is that the said Junior Engineer has been held in the stated order dated 17.3.89 responsible for the same without making any reference therein that the misappropriated has occurred due to my carelessness and negligence.With reference to the 'N.A.P.' which has been discussed at several places above, my submission in this regard is that I could at the maximum have sent letters and kept on reminding the earing junior engineers of my sub division to expedite submission of their respective Material-At-Site-Accounts and as the perusal of Annexure -'A' to 'G' to this explanation would reveal I had not failed in discharge of my that duty.The Material-At-Site-Account which Shri V.N. Sharma had submitted in the Sub Division and reference of which is given in order dated 17.3.89 had been received after my transfer from the sub division on 8.8.78. For this reason also I could not have checked the discrepancy about the transaction of cement of the abovenamed two Junior Engineers."The Disciplinary Authority has not even cursorily referred to the various contentions made by the petitioner. He contented himself by observing has follows:- " YADHAPPI P.W.F. AND A.R. NIYAM 70-75 ADHIKASHI ABHIANTA KO UTTRDAI NAHI THEHERTE, KINTU YE NIYAM 75 SE 79 KE ANTRAGAT PERVEKSHIE LAPERVAHI KE DOSHI HAIN. N.C.P. KE SAMBANDH MAIN DIA GAYA TERK SASHANKAT HAI, KIYONKE YEH PERNALI KEWAL PHYSICAL VEREFICATION KE SAMBANDH MAIN HEE LAGGU KEE GAI THEE. ESKA TATPERYA YEH NAHI HAI KE ESNE SABHI ADHINSTHON KE DWARA KIYE GAY KARYON KE PRATI ADHIKASHI ABHIYANTA APNI ANKHEN MOOND KEIN. SHRI SETIA NE UPER KE ADHIKARI PERVEKSHIY LAPERVAHI KE DOSHI HAIN TO SHRI SATIA ES DOSH SE KASE BACH SAKTE HAIN. ATTEH UNKE VIRUDH BHI AROPE SIDH HOTA HAI." The underlined portion goes to show how casually the Disciplinary Authority treated the entire matter. 10. A censure, though a minor punishment, seriously prejudices the career of a Government servant. Even in awarding Censure, a Disciplinary Authority must be circumspect and must consider properly the representation submitted by a Delinquent Official. ATTEH UNKE VIRUDH BHI AROPE SIDH HOTA HAI." The underlined portion goes to show how casually the Disciplinary Authority treated the entire matter. 10. A censure, though a minor punishment, seriously prejudices the career of a Government servant. Even in awarding Censure, a Disciplinary Authority must be circumspect and must consider properly the representation submitted by a Delinquent Official. If the various contentions raised by the Delinquent Official are not considered, then it cannot be said that his representation has been considered. I, therefore, find good deal of substances in conclusion of Mr. K.N. Joshi when he says that the representation of the petitioner was not considered at all. 11. Shri Bastichand Bhansali, then referred rules 75 to 79 of the PWF & AR. These rules may be quoted in extenso. Hence rules reads as under:- "75. The Divisional Officer is responsible to the Superintending Engineer for the execution and management of all works within his division. He is strictly prohibited from commencing the construction of any work or incurring any expenditure without the sanction of the contempt authority; also from making or permitting any, expert trifling deviations from any sanctioned design in the course of execution except under specific authority, or in case of emergency, when the change should be forthwith reported to the Superintending Engineer. Immediately on a work being completed it will be the duty of the Divisional Officer to close the accounts and prepare the completion report, if required by the rules in Paragraph 399. 76. The Divisional Officer will take necessary steps for obtaining cash for the works under his control, keep his accounts and submit them punctually to the Accountant General under the rules for the time being in force and exercise a thorough and efficient control and check over his Divisional Accountant. He will also before submitting the monthly accounts, carefully examine the books, returns and papers from which they are complied.77. The Divisional Officer is responsible for the correctness, in all respects, of the original records of cash and stores, receipts and expenditure and for seeing that complete vouchers are obtained. He is also responsible to see that his accounts are regularly posted from day to day and that the Accountant carries out his duties regularly and punctually. The Divisional Officer is responsible for the correctness, in all respects, of the original records of cash and stores, receipts and expenditure and for seeing that complete vouchers are obtained. He is also responsible to see that his accounts are regularly posted from day to day and that the Accountant carries out his duties regularly and punctually. The relative position of a Divisional Accountant to the Divisional Officer in respect of accounts is analogous to that of a Sub-Divisional Officer to a Division Officer in respect of works, and the responsibilities of latter for the work of the Divisional Accountant are similar to those which attach to him in respect of the execution of works in the charge of other subordinates. "78. The Divisional Officer is responsible for the detailed assessment of all classes of revenue within his division and will maintain such records and accounts for the purpose as may be prescribed. The Divisional Accountant will assist him in maintaining the records and the accounts of revenue realised.79. The Divisional Officer is held primarily responsible for affording information in cases of probability of excess of actual over estimated cost of work, and is expected not to allow any delay to occur in reporting to the Superintending Engineer any such probability. Immediately on its becoming apparent that whether from excess of certain rates or from departure from a design or any other cause estimated cost of a work is likely to be the exceeded, the Division Officer is bound to report the act forthwith to the Superintending Engineer describing the nature and cause of the probable excess and asking for orders. This report should be made on works slip, Form No. 39. The Divisional Officer must also submits the Work Slip, with such explanation as will enable the Superintending Engineer to pass orders on the Case, on the occurrence, or the probability of the occurrence, of any irregularity in the rate or cost of a sub-head. All important liabilities not brought to account should also be noted on the Works Slip.Note:- It will be unnecessary for the Divisional Officer to submit the Works Slip in cases in which he can pass finally excesses over estimates under his financial powers."A bare perusal of these rules goes to show that these rules speak of the duties and responsibilities of the Divisional Officer. Learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon the underlined portion of Rule 77. A bare reading of this portion goes to show that it simply says the relationship of the Divisional Accountant to the Divisional Officer (Executive Engineer), which is analogous to the relationship of the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Divisional Officer in respect of works. The true meaning of the provisions is that Divisional Accountant is responsible to the Divisional Engineer in respect of the accounts in the same manner in which a Sub-Divisional Officer is responsible to a Divisional Officer in respect of works. This rule does not make the Sub-Divisional Officer responsible for maintenance of accounts and hand bags of stores . As already stated in the new accounting procedure, a separate organisation under the Chief Accounts Officer had been created for maintenance of accounts and handling of stores. The petitioner was responsible for execution of works. He was not responsible for maintenance of accounts or handling of stores. When it is so, he could not be held responsible for any actions of N.C. Garg and V.N. Sharma in respect of alleged embezzlement. 12. In view of what I have stated above, the order imposing penalty of Censure on the petitioner does not proceed upon proper consideration of the representation of the petitioner. It was obligatory on the Disciplinary Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner in its proper perspective. I, therefore, find that Annexure 5 dated 13.7.91 deserves to be quashed. I hereby quash the same. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that matter may be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for re-consideration of the representation of the petitioner. In my opinion, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority. The matter pertains to the alleged supervisory negligence of the petitioner pertaining to the year 1976. This is the last quarter of 1992. 15 years have already elapsed; the petitioner has already undergone the mental agony of the disciplinary proceedings, which were pending against him like a sword of domiciles I am, therefore, of the view that the matter does not deserve to be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority. 14. I, accordingly, accept this writ petition as indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******