JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated, 19/21.11.87, 17.5.88 and 17.1.89 which relate to the imposition of punishment of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect, dismissal of his appeal and review petition respectively. He has prayed for release of his annual grade increment, which has been with-held in pursuance of the order dated, 19/21.11.87. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated, 12.10.90 to the extent it relates to the promotion of respondent No. 2 to the post of Dy. Manager in the service of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (For short the Corporation). He has also prayed for quashing of the order dated, 5.7.91 and for issue of a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager against the promotion quota of 1990-1991 and for his promotion with retrospective effect alongwith all consequential benefits. 2. The facts which are necessary for deciding the writ petition need a brief naration. The petitioner joined service of the respondent corporation as Clerk in pursuance of his appointment on that post by an order dated, 12.4.74 issued by the Secretary of the Respondent Corporation. He was promoted as Assistant on 10.9.79 and then as Senior Assistant by an order dated, 1.12.82. He was promoted as Assistant Manager by an order dated, 3.6.83, which was issued on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. In the seniority list of the Assistant Managers issued by the Corporation on 8.8.90 the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 36. 3. A Memorandum dated, 23.6.86 was issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation under Regulation- 37 of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as 1958 Regulations) and an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in respect of three charges enumerated in the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations which formed part of the Memorandum dated 23.6.80. The petitioner submitted an application dated, 27.6.86 and made a request for grant of permission to inspect the record for the purpose of submitting his reply. The inspection of some records was allowed by the respondent Corporation. By his application dated, 3.7.86 the petitioner again made a request for grant of permission for inspection of the remaining record. The petitioner submitted an application dated, 27.6.86 and made a request for grant of permission to inspect the record for the purpose of submitting his reply. The inspection of some records was allowed by the respondent Corporation. By his application dated, 3.7.86 the petitioner again made a request for grant of permission for inspection of the remaining record. He repeated his requests to the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation vide hid letter dated, 10.7.86. According to the petitioner, although he was not allowed inspection of the remaining record, he was directed by the Managing Director (P and A) vide fetter dated, 29.7.86 that he must submit his reply. The petitioner then submitted h4eply dated, 11.8.86 and while denying the charges he produced some documents in support of his reply. An enquiry was held against the petitioner. On the basis of this enquiry, the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation passed order dated, 19/21.11.87 and imposed the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect on the petitioner. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of punishment vide his memo of appeal (Ex.14). The appeal was dismissed by the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation. Rejection was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated, 17.5.88 of the Dy. General Manager (Persl. and Admn.). The petitioner then submitted a review petition dated, 27.7.88 This review petition was also rejected by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 4.1.89 and the rejection was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated, 17.1.89 of the Dy. General Manager ( P and A). 5. A Departmental Promotion Committee met sometimes in the month of October, 1990. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee an order dated, 12.10.90 was issued for promotion of 32 officers as Dy. Managers. The petitioner made a representation dated, 15.10.90 against his supersession. According to the petitioner, he was given assurance by the Chairman cum-Managing Director of the Corporation that his case will be considered in the review D.P.C. which was to be held in the near future. However, when the D.P.C. met his case was not considered. Instead, Shri B.L.Maheshwary respondent No.3, who is junior to the petitioner has been promoted as Dy. Manager by order; dated, 5.7.91 against the promotion quota of 1990-1991. His name has been included between Serial Nos. However, when the D.P.C. met his case was not considered. Instead, Shri B.L.Maheshwary respondent No.3, who is junior to the petitioner has been promoted as Dy. Manager by order; dated, 5.7.91 against the promotion quota of 1990-1991. His name has been included between Serial Nos. II and 12 in the order dated 12.10.90. 6. The petitioner has challenged the punishment of stoppage of one grade increment imposed on him on the ground that the order of punishment has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The enquiry had not been held against him in accordance with procedure prescribed in Regulation- 37 of 1958 Regulations and he was not given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. The appellate order as well as the review order are also contrary to the principles of natural justice, because, they do not contain any reason and they are non-speaking orders. The Disciplinary Authority did not take into consideration the documentary evidence produced by him to show that the charges levelled against him were wholly baseless. 7. In regard to the denial of promotion and his supersession the petitioner has stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee has not considered his case fairly. Only on the basis of a wrong punishment of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect, the petitioner has been deprived of his promotion and he will suffer on account of this supersession for his entire remaining service period. The petitioner's case is that even though he has good service record, the Departmental Promotion Committee has not cared to look into that record and has been prejudicially influenced by the proceedings of the enquiry held against him. 8. In reply to the writ petition, the Corporation has pleaded that promotion to the post of Dy. Managers was made after due consideration of the case of the petitioner. He was not found suitable for promotion. The challenge to the order of punishment, the appellate order and the review order is highly belated and there is no explanation for long delay of 21/2 years. It has also been stated by the respondent Corporation that full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer. He was permitted to inspect the record. He was given opportunity of hearing by the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. It has also been stated by the respondent Corporation that full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer. He was permitted to inspect the record. He was given opportunity of hearing by the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority examined the entire material together with the report of the Enquiry Officer and then passed the order of punishment. The appeal filed by the petitioner was duly examined by the Board. After consideration of the grounds of the appeal the Board was of the opinion that no case was made out for interference and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. Similarly, no case was made out for interference in the review petition filed by the petitioner. It has been claimed by the respondent Corporation that denial of promotion on the recommendations of the D.P.C. does not amount to punishment under the relevant Service Regulations. The petitioner had the right of consideration only and that right of consideration has not been denied to him. 9. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. In the rejoinder the petitioner has tried to explain the delay in filing of the writ petition. He has asserted that after rejection of his review petition he had consulted his counsel. He was advised that since only a minor punishment had been imposed on him, the same will not be an impediment in his promotion on the basis of seniority cum-suitability. This was done on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board , which was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Prem Chand Kasliwal v. State of Rajasthan and others , decided on 10.7.89. Since the minor punishment was of no consequence in the matter of promotion, the petitioner was advised that he may come to the Court only if he was superseded. Thus, there has been no delay in filing of the writ petition on 26.7.91 immediately after the promotion of respondent No. 3, Shri B.L.Maheshwary, who is admittedly Junior to the petitioner in the Cadre of Assistant Manager. It has then been stated that the case of the petitioner has not been considered fairly and his junior has been given promotion without any legal justification. It has then been stated that the case of the petitioner has not been considered fairly and his junior has been given promotion without any legal justification. The petitioner has again stated that the charges levelled against him were wholly baseless and without giving him full opportunity to defend, the punishment order has been passed against him. 10. Before I consider the question involved in this case, I deem it proper to make reference to some important facts which are borne out from the record of the enquiry as well as the Departmental Promotion Committee which was placed before the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation. From File No. PA-13 (42), it is borne out that after the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, Shri O.EBhargava, General Manager cum Secretary, R.EC., Jaipur, was appointed as enquiry Officer vide order No. RFC PA.13 (42)/2768 dated, 15.10.86, Shri Bhargava conducted the enquiry. Shri V.K.Jalwal, Dy. Manager, Branch Office, Kota, acted as presenting Officer. Shri Bhargava took notice of the documents Annexures A to G. He also took notice of the comparative statement of the rates furnished by different 'taxi Owners as well as affidavit of Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, owner of Taxi No. Rs. 5132. After analysing the evidence the Enquiry Officer concluded that the explanation given by the petitioner and the purpose and distance shown appears to be reasonable. The Enquiry Officer also recorded that the Presenting Officer has also not disputed the same. On that basis, the Enquiry Officer held that charge No. 1 was not proved. He then analysed the evidence in regard to the charge No. 2 and held that the same was also not proved. On the basis of his findings on charges No. 1 and 2 the Enquiry Officer held that charge of mis-conduct, negligence and-violation of Staff Regulations was also not established. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 19.2.87. After receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Manager (P and A) prepared certain notes and observed that the bill raised by the petitioner was for higher rates. He also made certain comments regarding charges No. 2 and 3. The General Manager (Admn.) expressed his agreement on comments given by the Manager (P and A). After receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Manager (P and A) prepared certain notes and observed that the bill raised by the petitioner was for higher rates. He also made certain comments regarding charges No. 2 and 3. The General Manager (Admn.) expressed his agreement on comments given by the Manager (P and A). The Managing Director however, noted on 25.6.87 that further enquiry be made in respect of Charge No. 2 which was based on complaints by certain entrepreneurs about harassment and acceptance of bribe by Shri Rajawat. Shri O.P. Bhargave, therefore, conducted a further enquiry in the matter. He submitted his second report dated, 7.9.87 and held that in his opinion, somebody had played mischief against the petitioner. and tried to falsely implicate him. He further opined that the petitioner should be exonerated from the charges. The Dy. General manager (P and A) then submitted the report before the General Manager (Admn.) The General Manager (Admn.) in his turn recorded that use of vehicle for taking over possession cannot be justified by any stretch of imagination and on this count he appears to be guilty. The Managing Director then recorded his agreement with the General Manager (Admn.) and ordered with-holding of one grade increment of the petitioner without cumulative effect. The petitioner than submitted his appeal. The appeal was placed before the Board of Directors alongwith the comments made by the office. On that basis, the Board resolved to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner. On the review petition filed by the petitioner the same procedure was adopted and the Board of the respondent Corporation rejected the review petition. The resolutions of the Board while rejecting the appeal and review petition of the petitioner have been recorded in one line. 11. The recruitment to the post of Dy. Manager is required to be made 50% by. direct recruitment and 501%, by promotion. Promotions are regulated by the provisions contained in Regulation 20 of 1958 Regulations. In exercise of its powers conferred upon it by the Regulations the Board has from time to time, framed promotion policy. The promotion policy which was circulated vide Office order No. RFC/PA23/9/ 2536, dated, 19.9.80, lays down that the promotion shall be made on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of seniority subject to suitability from amongst persons who fall within the zone of consideration. The promotion policy which was circulated vide Office order No. RFC/PA23/9/ 2536, dated, 19.9.80, lays down that the promotion shall be made on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of seniority subject to suitability from amongst persons who fall within the zone of consideration. 12. When the Departmental Promotion Committee met sometimes in the month of September/October 1990 for consideration of promotions from the post of Asssistant Manager, a chart was prepared by the Office of the Corporation for being placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee. This chart contained the name, qualifications, source and date of appointment or recruitment with year, experience as Assistant manager, particulars of D.E. pending/ penalty imposed if any, including the nature of charges and also whether the officer had been superseded in the earlier D.P.Cs. Against the petitioner the following remarks were shown Nature of charges Status of DE Penalty imposed with year Misappropriation of Corp. funds, deliberately delaying disposal of DIC loan cases and causing harassment to the entrepreneurs for ulterior motives and found guilty of mis-conduct negligence and violation of Regulation, Charge-sheet dated 23.6.86 DE completed and charges proved. Penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 21.11.87. Particulars of DE pending/Penalty imposed, if anyAlongwith this statement a photostat copy of the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner vide Memorandum dated, 23.6.86 and photostat copy of the order of punishment dated, 19/21-11-87 were also enclosed.Re. Punishment Order dated, 19/ 21.11.87The first question which requires determination in this writ petition relates to the legality of the punishment order passed against the petitioner. The facts which are borne out from the record of the writ petition as well as the record of the enquiry placed before the court show that the Memorandum dated, 23.6.86 was issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation under Regulation 37. Three charges came to be levelled against the petitioner. The first charge relates to misappropriation of Corporation funds by claiming and actually receiving payments from the Corporation on the basis of fake bills. Charge No. 2 relates to deliberate delay in disposal of D.I.C. loan cases and causing harassment to the entrepreneurs with a view to secure illegal gratification from them. The third charge relates to misconduct, negligence and violation of the regulations. 13. Charge No. 2 relates to deliberate delay in disposal of D.I.C. loan cases and causing harassment to the entrepreneurs with a view to secure illegal gratification from them. The third charge relates to misconduct, negligence and violation of the regulations. 13. The statement of allegations in respect of charge No. 1 states that the petitioner submitted a bill for Rs. 460/- for hiring a Taxi and Rs. 155/- for purchasing lock for the purpose of taking possession of the Unit namely, M/s Jaidev Industries, Ramganj Mandi. It has been alleged that there was no gate or roof in the premises of the Factory and, therefore, there was no occasion to use to lock. The charges claimed for hiring a Taxi were on very high side. Thus, the petitioner drew the amount from the Corporation by submitting fake bills and misappropriated Corporation Funds for his personal gains. In the second part of the statement of allegations it has been stated that for taking possession of M/s Novelty Printers and Stationers the petitioner submitted a bill for hiring a Taxi showing a distance of 120 K. Mtrs. from his office to the Unit whereas the actual distance of the unit was hardly 20 K. Mtrs. Thus, the petitioner fradulently received Taxi charges by submitting fake bills to the extent of 100 K. Mtrs. The second charge is not being elaborated by me, because, the petitioner has not beeen punished for the same; but, it need be mentioned that the second charge was of extremely serious nature. 14. As already mentioned above, Shri O.P. Bhargava, General Manager-cum-Secretary of the Corporation was appointed as Enquiry Officer. A perusal of his report dated, 19.2.87 which was prepared by him after considering the submission of the Presenting Officer and the petitioner, shows that the Enquiry Officer had taken note of the rates furnished by M/s B.K. Brothers, Kota and M/s Khandelwal Taxi Stand. These rates were furnished by the Taxi Owners vide their letter dated, 15.12.86. The petitioner had hired the Taxi of Banwari Lal Sharma and he had filed the affidavit of Shri Banwari Lal Sharma (Annex. D). The petitioner had paid Rs. 1.80 per K. Mtr. for a distance of 225 K. Mtrs. The Enquiry Officer observed that on the basis of the rates of Taxi charges and the evidence regarding purchase of locks etc. D). The petitioner had paid Rs. 1.80 per K. Mtr. for a distance of 225 K. Mtrs. The Enquiry Officer observed that on the basis of the rates of Taxi charges and the evidence regarding purchase of locks etc. it is not reasonable to say that the petitioner withdrew the amount by submitting fake bills. The Enquiry Officer also took notice of the statement of Shri S.K. Jain, Dy. Manager, Jhalawar and Shri Ram Narain Bansal, Advocate, who had written letter dated, 29.1.87 (Annexure-E) and then held that one lock purchased by the petitioner was put on the Chowkidar's Quarter and the other locks were used for tying up the stone polishing Chakkas with chain at both the ends. Similarly, the Enquiry Officer accepted the version of the petitioner regarding his travel in the Taxi from one place to another in taking possession of M/s Novelty Printers and Stationers. The Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Managing Director simply relied on the comments made by the Manager (P and A) and the General Manager (Adorn.). A look at the order dated, 19/21 11.87 shows that in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority Charge No. 1 stood proved. The conclusion recorded by the Disciplinary Authority runs in the following words : "Charge No. 1 stands proved as it has been established that Shri Rajawat did misuse the taxi hired for the purpose of taking over possession of certain units and submitted inflated bills for the purpose. The Taxi hired for the purpose of taking over possession was misused, by Shri Rajawat as for taking over possession of the Factories located in Kota itself, a distance of 225 and 120 K. Mtrs. could not have been covered. Obviously, the Taxi was used for some other purpose as well." 15. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion, the Managing Director imposed punishment under Regulation-37 of 1958 Regulations. 16. In recording the aforesaid conclusion, the Disciplinary Authority has completely lost sight of the fact that M/s Jaidev Industries, of which possession was to be taken over by the petitioner was situated at Ramganj Mandi and not at Kota. It has also lost sight of the fact that M/s B.K. Brothers, Kota had given the rates for going from Kota to Ramganj mandi as Rs. 1.80 per K. Mtr. and M/s Khandelwal Taxi Stand had given the rates as 1.70 to Rs. 2.00 per K. Mtr. It has also lost sight of the fact that M/s B.K. Brothers, Kota had given the rates for going from Kota to Ramganj mandi as Rs. 1.80 per K. Mtr. and M/s Khandelwal Taxi Stand had given the rates as 1.70 to Rs. 2.00 per K. Mtr. for going from Kola to Ramganj Mandi. The petitioner had paid for the Taxi of Banwari Lai Sharma at the rate of Rs. 1.80 per K. Mtr. No evidence has been placed on record to show that the.rate of the Taxi for going from Kota to Ramganj Mandi was less than the aforesaid amount. The affidavit given by Banwari Lai Sharma is as under : eSa cuokjh yky 'kekZ iq= Jh jke xksiky 'kekZ fuoklh u;kiqjk dksVk dk gwWaA 'kiFkiwoZd ?kks"k.kk djrk gwWa fd % esjh xkM+h vkj0,l0Vh0 5132 gS rFkk Jh xksfoUn flag jktkor lgk;d izcU/kd dksVk us vkfQl dk;Z gsrq jkexat e.Mh okLrs fdjk;s ij yh Fkh ftldk 225 fdyksehVj dk nj 1-80 fd0 ehVj ds fglkc ls dqy 405 :i;s [kpZ gkyfVax pktZ 40 :i;s udn izkIr dj esjs M~kboj Jh jes'k us jlhn nh Fkh tks lgh gSA lk/kkj.kr;k ge blh jsV ij xkM+h pykrs gSaA mijksDr rF; eSaus iwjs gks'k , gokl fcuk fdlh ncko ds fy[kk gSA 9.8.86 g0 cuok+jh yky 'kekZ] The record of the enquiry has also been totally ignored by the Disciplinary Authority. The waiting charges of the Taxi had been indicated by the M/s B.K. Brothers, Kota and M/s Khandelwal Taxi Stand Kota as Rs. 10/- per hour. It is more Chap apparent that the Managing Director was misled in recording a finding regarding higher rates of charges by the comments of the Manager (P and A). The Manager (P and A) had noted that the Taxi rates prevailing in 1983-84 for going from Kota to Ramganj Mandi was 1.50 per K. Mtr. The halting charges were Rs. 5/- per hour and even if a total distance of 225 K. Mtr. was to be taken into consideration, the amount could be Rs. . 392.50 whereas, the petitioner had charged at the rate of Rs. 1.80 per K. Mtr. The halting charges were Rs. 5/- per hour and even if a total distance of 225 K. Mtr. was to be taken into consideration, the amount could be Rs. . 392.50 whereas, the petitioner had charged at the rate of Rs. 1.80 per K. Mtr. It is more than evident that the Manager (P and A) had taken note of the rates prevailing in 1983-84 as given out by M/s B.K. Brothers and M/s Khandelwal Taxi Stand, Kota, and either inadvertantly or deliberately be over-looked the rates given for the year 1985-86. This is evident from the bare look at the abstract of the report of the Enquiry Officer which reads as under : M/s. B.K. Brothers, Kota 1983-84 1985-86 Rs. Per K.M. Rs. Kota to Ramganj Mandi 1.50 1.80 Kota to Jaipur 1.20 1.30 Kota local 1.70 2.00 Waiting charges 5.00 per hour 10.00 per hour Neight halt 30.00 50.00 M/s Khandelwal Taxi Stand (Annexure 'C') Kota to Ramganj Mandi 1.50 to 1.75 1.70 to 2.00 Local 2.00 (Minimum 60 K.M.) 2.00 (Minimum 75 K.M.) Waiting charges 5.00 per hour 10.00 per hour 17. The other conclusion recorded in the order of the Managing Director about the misuse of Taxi hired for taking possession of the factories is equally incorrect. The Managing Director has proceeded on the assumption that the factories were located in Kota itself and a distance of 225 and 120 K. Mtrs. could not have been covered and that the Taxi had been used for some other purpose as well. The Managing Director completely ignored the fact that the Unit of M/s Jaidev Industries was situated at Ramganj Mandi and not at Kota. The Enquiry Officer relied on the evidence of Shri S.K. Jain, who was present at the time of taking over possession of the Unit. Regarding other unit, namely, M/s. Novelty Printers and Stationers, The Enquiry Officer accepted the version of the petitioner that he had used a Taxi for going from Branch Office to Court to take Notary Public, then to Notary's residence at Kaithonipole and then back to the court and Factory site, Factory site to Aerodrome Circle, then to Nayapura to locate the machine because, the machine was not at factory site, back to Factory site, Factory site to Court in order to drop the Notary public and from Court to dadabari and finally to the Branch Office. Even the Presenting Officer did not dispute the version given by the petitioner about the purpose and distance shown, where the Taxi was used. Completely ignoring the facts that the petitioner had to travel at various places in connection with the taking over possession of the unit, the Managing Director drew conclusion that the Taxi was misused by the petitioner. No reason, whatsoever, has been given for not accepting the explanation of the petitioner regarding the distances travelled by him in the Taxi. No evidence is available on record to show that the petitioner had in fact not travelled the various places indicated by him in his explanation. It must, therefore, be held that the Disciplinary Authority had totally mis-directed itself in holding that Charge No. 1 was proved against the petitioner. The bald conclusions recorded by the Disciplinary Authority which are wholly unsupported by reasons, are untenable in law. The Disciplinary Authority has, instead of looking to the record and the evidence produced during the course of enquiry, based its conclusions on pure conjectures. 18. Regulation 37(1) of 1958 Regulations specifies the penalties which can be imposed on an employee of the Corporation. Clause (2) of the said Regulations lays down that, no employee shall be subjected to the penalties specified in clauses (b) to (h) of Regulation-37(1) except by a written order of the Managing Director and no such order can be passed without the charge/charges being formulated in writing and without giving to the said employee a reasonable opportunity to answer them in writing or in person. Certain exceptions have been carved out in this very clause of Regulation-37, however, they are not relevant for the purpose of the present case. Admittedly, in the present case, a charge-sheet was given to the petitioner which contained three charges. Shri O.P. Bhargava General Manager-cum-Secretary, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He submitted the first report on 19.2.87 and the second report on 7.9.87. The Enquiry Officer carefully analysed the evidence brought on record and then held that none of the charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved. The Disciplinary Authority has expressly neither recorded agreement nor disagreement with the findings of the enquiring Authority. He submitted the first report on 19.2.87 and the second report on 7.9.87. The Enquiry Officer carefully analysed the evidence brought on record and then held that none of the charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved. The Disciplinary Authority has expressly neither recorded agreement nor disagreement with the findings of the enquiring Authority. However, its disagreement with regard to the findings on charge No. 1 can be inferred from the fact that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded a conclusion that the charge of submitting inflated bills and misuse of the Taxi is proved. What was required in such fact-situation was that the Disciplinary Authority ought to have recorded specific reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiring Authority and it ought to have given a notice to the petitioner indicating its reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiring Authority and called upon him to submit his explanation. It is true that under Regulation-37 (2), no specific procedure has been laid down which is required to be followed except that a charge-sheet is to be given and a reasonable opportunity of defence is to be afforded to the employee concerned but, when the Disciplinary Authority has thought it proper to appoint an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer and regular procedure for departmental Enquiry was followed it was obligatory for the Disciplinary Authority to have considered the record of the Enquiry and to have recorded reasons for disagreement specifically, in case, it decided not to agree with the findings and conclusions of Enquiring Authority. It was also obligatory for the Disciplinary Authority to have given a notice of its reasons for disagreement to the petitioner and to have given him an opportunity of making representation. The employment of the petitioner was a public employment and the statutory body like the Rajasthan Financial Corporation was hound to act in accordance with the basic rules of natural justice. The enquiry got conducted by the respondent Corporation was a quasi judicial enquiry and, therefore, the duty to observe the Rules of natural justice was implicit. The Rules of natural justice warrant that whenever some material adverse to a person is sought to he used in a quasi judicial proceedings such adverse material must be made available to the man and he must be given a reasonable opportunity of submitting his explanation/representation in counter to that adverse material. The Rules of natural justice warrant that whenever some material adverse to a person is sought to he used in a quasi judicial proceedings such adverse material must be made available to the man and he must be given a reasonable opportunity of submitting his explanation/representation in counter to that adverse material. A reasonable opportunity of defence includes within itself the right to know the adverse material and to submit arguments to counter that adverse material. If a man is not made aware of the adverse material the opportunity of defending himself given to him is reduced to an empty formality. Therefore, whether there exists Statutory Rules or not, ordinarily, the quasi-judicial body of authority must give entire adverse material to the effected person must also give him an opportunity to put forward his case in regard to that adverse material. 19. In the context of the concept of "reasonable opportunity of being heard" envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution of India a division bench of this Court has in Nathu Lai v. State, AIR 1958 Rajasthan 153 held as under: "In a case in which the enquiring officer is different from the punishing authority the procedure which should be adopted is this. The punishing authority should apply its mind to the report of the enquiring officer and see whether it agrees with it wholly or in part. If it agrees with it wholly, that is if it agrees both with the findings and the reasoning given for arriving at the conclusions, the punishing authority should say so specifically in its order under which it issues notice of the proposed punishment which it thinks suitable in the circumstances of the case. A copy of the report of the enquiring officer contatining the reasoning by which he arrives at the conclusion that the charges have been proved should be handed over to the civil servant so that he has an opportunity of showing cause against the reasoning. Where the punishing authority agrees with part of the findings and disagrees with the rest it should again say so specifically in its order under which it issues notice of the proposed punishment. If the authority comes to the conclusion that certain charges, which in the opinion of the enquiring officer have not been proved, have also been substantiated then the authority should give its reasoning in support of this finding. If the authority comes to the conclusion that certain charges, which in the opinion of the enquiring officer have not been proved, have also been substantiated then the authority should give its reasoning in support of this finding. A copy of the findings of the enquiring officer on the charges held by him to have been proved together with a copy of the findings of the punishing authority holding the other charges to have been substantiated should be handed over to the civil servant in order to afford him an opportunity of making representation against the accuracy of facts found by the punishing authority." (Underline (Black) is mine) 20. In Hari Narain Goyal v. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation and others, 1983 R.L.R. 520 , a learned Single Judge of this Court interpreted Rule-16 (10) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, and held that it was a mandatory requirement of the Rules to furnish a copy of the enquiry report together with reasons of disagreement. In Vijay Singh v. RSRTC S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1372/84 decided on 7.10.92 , 1 have examine the question in detail and the after making reference to a large number of decided cases, I have recorded the following conclusions : "1. The rules of natural justice, unless they are excluded by provisions contained in the Act, Rules or Regulations, have to be complied with in departmental inquiries held against the civil servants and employees of the agencies and instrumentalities of the State. Rules of natural justice require that before an order is passed for punishing an employee, he must be made available with the adverse material, including a copy of the inquiry report, which may be used against him by the disciplinary authority/employer. If the employee is not made aware of the adverse material, the punishment order is liable to be declared as illegal and void on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. In a disciplinary inquiry held against an employee by a public authority the disciplinary authority must furnish a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee and give him an opportunity of making representation against the findings and the reasons recorded by the Inquiring Officer. 3. 2. In a disciplinary inquiry held against an employee by a public authority the disciplinary authority must furnish a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee and give him an opportunity of making representation against the findings and the reasons recorded by the Inquiring Officer. 3. If the inquiring authority records a finding of not guilty and the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority then too the disciplinary authority must give a copy of the report of inquiring authority along with its reasons for disagreement with those findings and give an opportunity to the employee to submit his representation. 4. The Judgment of A.K Mathur, J. in Ram Singh v. R.S.R.T.C., 1986 (1) Judi. Surveyor 129 (para 4) reflects the correct position of law on the requirement of supply of copy of inquiry report to the delinquent before an order of punishment is passed under the provisions of the Standing Orders of 1965. 5. Even after amendment of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the requirement of "reasonable opportunity of being heard" implies that before a decision is taken by the disciplinary authority to punish the employee, copy of inquiry report must be made available to the delinquent and he should be given an opportunity of making representation against the adverse findings. 6. The order of punishment passed by a disciplinary authority must contain reasons in it. It must be a speaking order and mere recording of conclusions does not satisfy the requirement of passing of a speaking order which is a part and parcel of the principles of natural justice. Reasons cannot be gathered from the official notings or files for sustaining a non-speaking order. 7. In terms of clause 36 of the Standing orders of 1965, the disciplinary authority is under an obligation to record good and sufficient reasons for imposing a particular penalty. Such reasons must be communicated to the delinquent employee." 21. In the case in hand the Managing Director has passed the impugned order without following the basic rules of natural justice. He has not applied his mind to the report of enquiring officer. Instead he has relied on the comments of Manager (P and A) and General Manager (administration) without giving any notice of these comments to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of his say to the petitioner in regard to these comments. He has not applied his mind to the report of enquiring officer. Instead he has relied on the comments of Manager (P and A) and General Manager (administration) without giving any notice of these comments to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of his say to the petitioner in regard to these comments. Similarly the Managing Director has completely ignored the evidence which was produced during the course of inquiry. The conclusion recorded by the disciplinary autuority are based on conjuctures and not on any evidence and the same are therefore perverse. The order dated 19/21.11.87 is liable to he quashed for these reasons. 22. The appellate and review orders suffer from two common infirmities. Both these orders completely ignore the serious illegalities with which order of the disciplinary authority suffer. At the same time both these orders are liable to be quashed because they are totally beraft of reasons. These orders are non speaking orders and are therefore violative of the rules of natural justice. The requirement of appellate and revisional orders being reasoned orders has been emphasised in Bhagar Raja v. U.O.I., AIR 1967 SC 1606 ; Seimon Engineering Co. v. U.O.I., AIR 1976 SC 1785 ; Ramchander v. U.O.I., AIR 1986 SC 1173 and Poonam Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 WLN (UC) 311. Thus the order of punishment as well orders rejecting appeal and review petition are liable to be quashed.Re-Promotion to the Post of Dy. Manager : The equality clause contained in the Constitution not only guarantees the right of consideration to all eligible persons in the matters of public employment (promotions) but also guarantees fair consideration. The consideration which can withstand the charge of arbitrariness must be fair consideration. Arbitrariness and caprice are sworn enemies of equality. State, its instrumentalities and agencies are bound to act reasonably and their actions must be fair and devoid of arbitrariness. Every State action is liable to be tested in the court on the touch stone of reasonableness. The State is under an obligation to act reasonably and in the public interest. If these twin requirements are not satisfied in a particular State action, such State action is liable to be nullified. 23. It is a usual practice of the Departmental Promotion Committees/Selection Committees to place reliance on the particulars which are placed before it in the form of statement prepared by the Departmental Authorities. If these twin requirements are not satisfied in a particular State action, such State action is liable to be nullified. 23. It is a usual practice of the Departmental Promotion Committees/Selection Committees to place reliance on the particulars which are placed before it in the form of statement prepared by the Departmental Authorities. These statements are prepared with the object of giving a pen picture of the service record of the employees who fall within the zone of consideration. The Departmental Promotion Committee or the Selecting Body which is not required to go into the minute details by making reference to the service files/confidential reports and enquiry files, can rely on the statement prepared for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion regarding the suitability of the candidate. Whenever there is a doubt or some clarification is required, the original record is looked into. Obviously therefore an onerous duty is cast upon the persons who are assigned the task of preparing these statements. A deliberate error in the preparation of such statement of carelessness/negligence in the preparation of such statement can have far reaching implications. Wrong informations in the statement which are placed before the D.P.C. or Selection Bodies, may lead to an erroneous recommendation of selection or non-selection and lead to avoidable litigation in the courts. Above all, the credibility of the Selecting Committee or the D.P.C. is itself put to stake. 24. The material which has come on record shows that the petitioner was within the zone of consideration and he fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility for the purpose of consideration .or promotion to the post of Dy. Manager. It is also a fact that his name was included in the list of eligible persons and the Departmental Promotion Committee did consider his candidature. However, the consideration made in the case of the petitioner was far from being a fair consideration. The person/persons who were assigned the task of preparing the statement which was to be placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee, had clearly manipulated the record. In the statement placed before the D.Y.C. has been shown as if all the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. The person/persons who were assigned the task of preparing the statement which was to be placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee, had clearly manipulated the record. In the statement placed before the D.Y.C. has been shown as if all the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. The charges which have been quoted in the statement relate to misappropriation of Corporation funds, deliberate delay in disposal of DIC loan cases and causing harassment to the entrepreneurs for ulterior motive as well as the allegations of misconduct, negligence and -violation of the Regulations. The statement that the charges were proved against the petitioner is factually incorrect. The allegation of deliberate delay in disposal of DIC loan cases and causing harassment to entrepreneurs for ulterior motive as well as the allegations of misconduct, negligence and violation of the Regulations have not been found proved either by the Enquiring Authority or the Disciplinary Authority. Thus it is abundantly clear that the person who prepared the statement either deliberately incorporated wrong facts or this was a case of gross negligence on the part of the person who prepared the statement. The manner in which the pen picture of the record of the petitioner was projected before the Departmental Promotion Committee, leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner has been treated unfairly. The Departmental Promotion Committee was influenced by the gravement of the charges levelled against the petitioner. In reality if the charge of delay in deciding the loan applications of the entrepreneurs with ulterior motive was found to be proved, there could have been every justification for superseding the petitioner. However, when it is found as a matter of fact, that such charge has not been proved and yet the same was shown as one of the charges proved against the petitioner, there is no escape from the conclusion that the consideration of the case of the petitioner was not fair and was not in confirmity with the equality clause contained in the Constitution. 25. There are two more reasons for holding that the consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the Post of Dy. Manager has not been fair. It is significant to notice that criteria for promotion to the post of Dy. Manager is seniority-cum-suitability. It is neither seniority-cum-merit nor merit-cum-seniority nor purely merit. It is just like seniority-cum-fitness. 25. There are two more reasons for holding that the consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the Post of Dy. Manager has not been fair. It is significant to notice that criteria for promotion to the post of Dy. Manager is seniority-cum-suitability. It is neither seniority-cum-merit nor merit-cum-seniority nor purely merit. It is just like seniority-cum-fitness. When the criteria for promotion is merit then the best amongst the candidates falling within the zone of consideration or those fulfilling a particular yard-stick laid down for determination of merit can be picked up for promotion. When the criteria is merit-cum-seniority, preponderance of weight is to be given to the consideration of merit and even junior persons having better record than the senior persons can be promoted. When the criteria is seniority-cum-merit, more weightage is to he given to the seniority and a person who is otherwise suitable cannot be denied promotion merely because, a junior person is considered to be more meritorious. When the criteria is seniority-cum-fitness or seniority-cum-suitability than a senior person can be ignored only if it is found that he is unfit. Consideration of better merit cannot weight when recommendations are required to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness or seniority-cum-suitability or seniority subject to suitability. 26. When promotions arc made the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Selecting Authority has to apply its mind not only to the Departmental Enquiry pending against an employee or the punishment imposed on him or other adverse record, but, also the good entries if any, appearing in the record of that person. Punishment by itself cannot be the basis for superseding a person. The Departmental Promotion Committee is required to apply its mind to the entire service record objectively. The punishment imposed on the employee is required to be examined with reference to the year of incident, nature of charge/allegations, severity of punishment and its impact on the service itself. This principle has been laid down in Ram Narain Meena v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6404/90 decided on 3.1.92. The same view has been expressed though in different words by a Full Bench in Suraj Mal Soni v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 (2) Western Law Cases 1. The Full Beach held, consideration of' penalty inflicted on a Government servant does not amount to punishment and arracts the doctrine of double jeopardy. The same view has been expressed though in different words by a Full Bench in Suraj Mal Soni v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 (2) Western Law Cases 1. The Full Beach held, consideration of' penalty inflicted on a Government servant does not amount to punishment and arracts the doctrine of double jeopardy. Every D.P.C. has to examine the service record objectively and while examining the case for promotion and considering the manner of penalty if any, the Promotion Committee, if it thinks proper, may see as to what was the nature of allegations on which the minor penalty was inflicted on the Government servant. What the Full Bench has laid down is that the nature of penalty imposed be also given importance when the penalty imposed on a Government servant is taken into consideration at the time of his promotion. In Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri, AIR 1991 S.C. 1216 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down that in the matter of recording of adverse entries and decision of the representation submitted by the employees against adverse remarks, there is no requirement of communicating reasons to the employee concerned. It however, held that the Administrative Authority is not free to pass orders without there being any reasons for the same. The reasons are to be recorded in the form of notes on the files and these reasons enable the competent Authority to formulate its opinion. The Court further held that if an order rejecting the representation is challenged in a court of law, it is always open to the competent Authority to place the reasons before the Court which may have led to the rejection of the representation. The necessity of reasons being recorded at least in the file has been highlighted in a recent Supreme Court's decision in Kumari Srilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., AIR 1991 S.C. 537 . In that case, the Supreme Court held that public authority must disclose the material and reasons before the Court when its action is challenged on the ground of arbitrariness and such challenge is prima facie entertained by the Court. It further held that, if after a prima facie case of arbitrariness is made out the State is unable to show that the decision is a Government action which is reasonable, the State action must perish as arbitrary. 27. It further held that, if after a prima facie case of arbitrariness is made out the State is unable to show that the decision is a Government action which is reasonable, the State action must perish as arbitrary. 27. The aforesaid two decisions show that all State actions must be founded on good reasons and even though, reasons are not be communicated in every matter, such reasons must be placed before the Court as and when action is challenged on the ground of arbitrariness of unreasonableness. Denial of promotion to a person or his supersession certainly affect an employee adversely. When a person is denied promotion or he is superseded by his juniors, his entire career is affected. Right of fair consideration is guaranteed by the Constitutional provisions contained in Article 16. When such is the importance of the promotion in the careers of the employees it is absolutely necessary for the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Appointing Authority to atleast record some reasons on the file for superseding a senior person. Such reasons need not be communicated in the order of promotion, but, as and when supersession challenged in a court of law by an aggrieved employee, the employer must place those reasons and materials before the court to show that the decision is not arbitrary. 28. In the present case, the record which has been placed before the court does not show the reasons on the basis of which the Departmental Promotion Committee came to the conclusion that senior persons are not suitable for some valid reasons. The minutes of the meeting of the' Committee show that the Committee has simply prepared a list of persons to whom it has considered fit for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability or merit. There is no finding of unfitness or unsuitability in respect of the persons who have been superseded. This is only a matter of inference that those who have not been included in the list of persons whose names have been recommended for promotion, have been treated to be unsuitable. There is no finding of unfitness or unsuitability in respect of the persons who have been superseded. This is only a matter of inference that those who have not been included in the list of persons whose names have been recommended for promotion, have been treated to be unsuitable. Although the report of the Committee speaks of the consideration of the Annual Confidential Reports, personal files, entire service record and other connected papers, however, a look at the statement prepared for placement before the Departmental Promotion Committee shows that the information placed before the D.P.C. was merely in the form of the qualifications of the candidates, length of service/experience and particulars of D.E. pending/penalty imposed and previous supersession. The charge-sheets issued to 13 persons and the orders of punishment passed in different cases were placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee. There is no noting regarding the evaluation of the performance of the candidates which have been reflected in their Annual Confidential Report and other service records. It is, thus, apparent that the Departmental Promotion Committee was greatly influenced by the one singular factor, namely, the pending departmental enquiry on the punishment imposed on the employees whose names were under consideration. That factor has out weighed all other factors in the matter of adjudging the suitability of the candidates. Above all the consideration of petitioner's' case is vitiated because a wholly erroneous picture of charges levelled and proved against was projected before D.I.C. 29. Now a word about the objection of delay in which has been raised by Shri Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation. Although, there is no doubt that the petition has been filed after a lapse of some time, but, the explanation given by the petitioner, namely, that he was assured of fair consideration and also that in view of the law laid down in Prem Chand Kasliwal's case, he was advised not to approach the Court and that he may not superseded only on the basis of punishment and that he may approach the court if punishment results in his supersession, it cannot be said that the petitioner has acted with negligence or that he is guilty of lathes. If the petitioner has placed reliance on the legal advice tendered to him, it is not possible to accept the plea that he was careless or negligent in any manner. If the petitioner has placed reliance on the legal advice tendered to him, it is not possible to accept the plea that he was careless or negligent in any manner. Moreover, once the Court has found merit in the challenge made by the petitioner and it has come to the conclusion that the order of punishment passed against him is contrary natural justice and is based on no evidence and that consideration of his candidature for promotion is vitiated on account of arbitrariness, the delay by itself in filing the writ petition cannot be a ground for denying relief to him. It has also to betaken note of that the writ petition had been admitted by the Court on 9.8.91 and remained pending for a period of one year when it was taken up for hearing. After the petition has been admitted and the petitioner has been able to make out a good case, the technical ground of delay cannot be allowed to over-weigh the consideration or justice. 30. In Trilok Chand Moti Lai v. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 , the Supreme Court has held that there is no period of limitation prescribed for entertaining the writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no upper time limit and there is no lower time limit. It all depends on the facts of a given case, as to whether delay should be treated as sufficient for denying relief or the delay deserves to be ignored. In the present case, I am clearly of the opinion that the delay in filing of the writ petition cannot be treated fatal to the relief claimed by the petitioner.On .the basis of the above discussion, it is held that the order of punishment passed against the petitioner on 19/21.11.87 is perverse in as much as it is based on no evidence. It is also bad on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. Once the order of punishment is found to be vitiated the appellate order and the order passed on review petition, which are wholly unreasoned orders, are also liable to be declared as illegal. 31. It is further held that the consideration of the petitioner's candidature for promotion to the post of Dy. Once the order of punishment is found to be vitiated the appellate order and the order passed on review petition, which are wholly unreasoned orders, are also liable to be declared as illegal. 31. It is further held that the consideration of the petitioner's candidature for promotion to the post of Dy. Manager has not been fair in as much as a distorted picture of the record of the petitioner was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee by saying that all the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved, even though, the grave charge had not been found proved, against the petitioner. Moreover when the penalty imposed on the petitioner is held to be vitiated, the Corporation is under an obligation to re-consider the case of the petitioner. 32. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 19/21.11.87, 17.5.88 and 17.1.89 are declared illegal and are quashed. The respondent corporation is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. Manager in the light of the observations made above. In case, the petitioner is found suitable, he shall be promoted with retrospective effect, that is, w.e.f. the date of promotion of the persons junior to him with all consequential benefits.Costs made easy.Writ Petition Allowed . *******