JUDGMENT 1. - By these petitions, the petitioner in each case, has challenged the order passed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur, dismissing the petitioner Iqbal Singh from service and reducing the rank of the other three petitioners for proved misconduct. 2. An enquiry was conducted by the Board into the allegations of misconduct against Serva-Shri Iqbal Singh, Executive Engineer O & M., P.K. Gupta, Assistant Engineer, (REC), D.L. Chawla, Asstt. Engineer (O&M), R.S. Sara, Asstt. Engineer (O&M) and P.P. Karwasra, Asstt. Engineer (REC). Except Shri Karwasra, who was working at Suratgarh, all others were working at Hanumangarh at the relevant time. All of them were charged with the misconduct of indiscipline in disobeying the order of superior Officers. The enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer considered the misconduct of all, as the charge against each of them was indentical. It was alleged that the Officers were not vigilant about their duties and disregarded the orders of superiors. 3. As would be seen hereinafter, the entire enquiry against all the Officers arises out of same set of facts. It was after consideration of this report that the Electricity Board ordered termination/reduction in rank of all these five Officers. Each of them came to this Court challenging the order as unsustainable in law. The allegations in the petitions are, therefore, same, the controversy is identical, the arguments that were advanced were identical hence it is necessary and proper to decide all these petitions by this common order. 4. It may be noted that Shri D.L. Chawla has expired during the pendency of these petitions and hence that petition has abated. The remaining four petitions shall stand disposed of this order. 5. The misconduct alleged to have been committed by these Officers relates to issue of 231 electric connections to agriculturists in and around Hanumangarh, in violation of orders, directions, regulations etc. of the Board or superior Officer. 6. It is alleged that in the year 1983-84 when Shri Iqbal Singh was posted as Executive Engineer (O&M) at Hanumangarh, he did issue 231 agricultural electricity connections without prior permission of the Board and without determining any target, which grant of connections resulted in heavy load on the transformer. The grant of connections was unplanned and was thus misuse of his official position. Similar charges were levelled against the other Officers, who were working directly under Executive Engineer, as Assistant Engineers. The grant of connections was unplanned and was thus misuse of his official position. Similar charges were levelled against the other Officers, who were working directly under Executive Engineer, as Assistant Engineers. 7. All the Officers denied the charges levelled against them and claimed that they have not committeed any misconduct whatsoever. It was contended by the Executive Engineer that he did not deliberately violate the letter issued by the Superintending Engineer as he bonafide believed that the explanations submitted by him had been accepted. When he came to know that his explanation is not accepted, he immediately stopped issuing or granting any further agricultural connections. It was claimed by him that he was vigilant towards his duties and did not deliberately disobey an order of any superior. The defence of the other Officers was simply that they were obeying the orders of the Executive Engineer. They granted the connections as ordered by the Executive Engineer and, therefor, they cannot be held responsible for any illegality, if existed, in such grant. They claimed that they acted in obedience to the orders of the superior. Even if it is assumed that the order was in violation of the order of Superintending Engineer they cannot be held guilty of any misconduct. 8. The Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and found that there has been wilful disobedience of the order of the Superintending Engineer and held the Officers guilty of the said misconduct. Accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Rajasthan Electricity Broad inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service against the Executive Engineer Shri Iqbal Singh and the other Officer have been reduced in rank from the post of Asstt. Engineer to the post of Junior Engineer for a period of three years. These orders are impugned in the above petitions. 9. The main argument in these cases was addressed by Mr. M. Mridul, Sr. Counsel and was supplemented by the learned counsel appearing for the other Officers. The Board was represented by Mr. D.S. Shishodia, Sr. Advocate and assisted by Mr. R.K. Singhal, Advocate. 10. Several contentions have been raised by Mr. Mridul, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner - (a) Serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner-charged Office-I during the conduct of the enquiry. The learned counsel submitted that the sequence of evidence leading to the order of punishment should be considered. Advocate and assisted by Mr. R.K. Singhal, Advocate. 10. Several contentions have been raised by Mr. Mridul, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner - (a) Serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner-charged Office-I during the conduct of the enquiry. The learned counsel submitted that the sequence of evidence leading to the order of punishment should be considered. In this case, after the departmental enquiry was complete, order of punishment was passed, without giving the copy of the report to the petitioner. He, therefore, challenged that order of termination before this Court by way of a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed, direction was given that the respondent-Board should supply to the petitioner a copy of the report with a show cause notice of proposed punishment and the disciplinary proceedings should go on from that stage. It was after this remand that the petitioner addressed Ex. 14 to the Enquiry Officer, requesting for inspection of the records to enable him to give a detailed reply to the show cause notice after receipt of the enquiry report. By Ex. 15, this request was rejected by the Board. Therefore, the petitioner again wrote Ex. 16, giving out in details the reasons why the inspection has become necessary. A perusal of the enquiry report (para 16, page 86) will show that the Enquiry Officer has quoted several documents which were considered by him. The petitioner came to know all these documents only after the enquiry report was examined by him and, therefore, he had requested for inspection. Rejection of the said request on the ground that during the conduct of enquiry, inspection was already granted was, therefore, improper. Inspection was necessary after reading the report as several material documents were considered by the enquiry officer, which were not seen by the petitioner. His contention, therefore, is that material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by refusal of inspection. This amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and on this ground the order is vitiated. (b) It is then contended that similar prejudice has been caused by consideration of several documents filed along with the written arguments of the Board, of which the petitioner never had any knowledge. It is, therefore, a case of consideration of extraneous material without knowledge of the petitioner and, therefore, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. (b) It is then contended that similar prejudice has been caused by consideration of several documents filed along with the written arguments of the Board, of which the petitioner never had any knowledge. It is, therefore, a case of consideration of extraneous material without knowledge of the petitioner and, therefore, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The basic principles of conduct of departmental enquiry have been violated and, therefore, the enquiry is vitiated. (c) Mr. Mridul then submitted that in view of the grave prejudice caused in the matter of conduct of enquiry, it was specifically pointed out to the Board in reply to the show cause notice that several documents have not been given to the petitioner, several documents which are considered by the Enquiry Officer were never on record till filing of the written arguments and consequently it has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner. The argument of the learned counsel is that the Board completely ignored this aspect and has nowhere dealt with this aspect of the case in its order. The Board is required to record good and sufficient reasons for penalising an employee. No such reasons have been recorded in the present case. There is no explanation why the cause shown by the petitioner is found insufficient and, therefore, it is submitted that the order of punishment is bad. It is contended that the order is in violation of Regulation 5 para (1) and Regulation 7 para (7). These are requirements of the Board in relation to conduct of departmental enquiry and are analogous to the provisions of Rule 14 and 16 of the C.C.A. Rules. 11. Then the learned counsel placed reliance on several judgments of this Court as also the Supreme Court of India, in support of the above contentions. 12. It was then submitted by the learned counsel that even on merit no case of any misconduct is proved. Relying on certain documents it is contended that the the power to grant one pole connections vests absolutely in the Executive Engineer. The letter dated 23.5.84, breach of which is the alleged misconduct, was never received by the petitioner. Thereafter on receipt of the letter dated 20th June 1984, the petitioner stopped issuing of any agricultural connections and submitted his explanation vide letter dated 7.7.84 (Ex.5). The letter dated 23.5.84, breach of which is the alleged misconduct, was never received by the petitioner. Thereafter on receipt of the letter dated 20th June 1984, the petitioner stopped issuing of any agricultural connections and submitted his explanation vide letter dated 7.7.84 (Ex.5). Since no reply was received to this letter, the petitioner assumed that the explanation is accepted. 13. According to the learned counsel, no misconduct as defined in Rule 28C(f) is made out and on merits also therefore, the order of punishment deserves to be quashed. 14. The learned counsel then referred extensively to the pleadings in para (o) page 24 of his petition and pointed out that throughout the State of Rajasthan there was overshooting of targets in the matter of supply of electricity to agricultural farmers and no action was taken against the other Executive Engineers who overshot their targets. The argument is that choosing the petitioner alone for disciplinary action is arbitrary exercise of power and on this ground also the order of punishment is liable to be quashed. In support reliance was placed by the learned counsel on several judgments. 15. Mr. D.S. Sishodia, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Board countered these arguments by saying that no material prejudice has been caused to the petitioners during the enquiry. Consideration of certain documents, as alleged, has not resulted in any injury, as the petitioners always had the knowledge of those documents. The learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the reply filed after the copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was served on the Officers shows that no such serious injury has been caused. It was then submitted by the learned counsel that wilful disobedience of the order of superior by a person in position as the petitioner Shri Iqbal Singh, has to be viewed very seriously and the Board was, therefore, justified in inflicting the punishment it has ordered. 16. It was then contended by Mr. Shishodia, learned Sr. Advocate for the Board that it cannot be disputed that there has been disobedience of the order of the Superintending Engineer regarding grant of connections that it was wilful, as also emerged from the report of the enquiry and, therefore, the guilt of misconduct is proved. 16. It was then contended by Mr. Shishodia, learned Sr. Advocate for the Board that it cannot be disputed that there has been disobedience of the order of the Superintending Engineer regarding grant of connections that it was wilful, as also emerged from the report of the enquiry and, therefore, the guilt of misconduct is proved. It was the submission of the learned counsel that merely because there was overshooting of targets in other parts of Rajasthan and no action was taken against those officers, cannot be a ground for not taking action against the present Officers. Then replying to the contention of Mr. Mridul that the Board is required to give good and sufficient reasons for penalising an employee it was submitted that such reasons have been recorded by the Board and no fault can be found with the order of punishment. 17. In my opinion, the controversy boils down to this- Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it can be said that the petitioner who was working as Executive Engineer (O & M) has committed any wilful disobedience of the orders issued by the Superior Authority and, has, thus misconducted himself, requiring the maximum penalty of removal from service ? The decision of the petition, in my opinion, will depend on the answer of this question.18. The Employees Conduct Regulations, 1976 framed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board to govern the conduct of the employees of the Board provide as to what amounts to misconduct? Clause 28 of these Regulations, reads thus - ''28. Acts and Omissions constituting misconduct :- Following acts and omissions shall be treated as misconduct, for which penalties as mentioned in Regulation 5 of the RSEB Employees (CC & A) Regulation, 1962 may be imposed by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. (a) & (b) .... (c) Non-performance of duties, slackness, dereliction of duty, negligence and neglect of work. (d) & (e) .. (f) Indiscipline or breach of any rule or instructions.'' Rest of the misconduct need not be considered.19. The petitioners are charged with these misconducts. The Enquiry Officer has found and the Board has agreed that there is no question of non- performance of any duty or slackness of duty or dereliction of duty. Officers have been held guilty of indiscipline or breach of any rule or instructions.20. The petitioners are charged with these misconducts. The Enquiry Officer has found and the Board has agreed that there is no question of non- performance of any duty or slackness of duty or dereliction of duty. Officers have been held guilty of indiscipline or breach of any rule or instructions.20. The contention of the Board is that the letter issued by the Superintending Engineer in regard to the agricultural connections amounts to instructions issued by the Board. Disobedience of these instructions is, therefore, liable to be considered as an act of indiscipline and, therefore, the petitioner have been rightly held to have committed the misconduct. It is in light of these Regulations that I propose to consider the circumstances coming out of the enquiry, as disclosed by the enquiry report and examine the rival contentions as to whether the acts proved to have been done by the Officer, constitute misconduct or not ?21. It is undisputed that a communication was addressed by the Superintending Engineer to the Executive Engineer, Iqbal Singh, regarding grant of one point connections to agriculturists and a direction was issued that no further connections would be released and explanation was also called for. It was communicated by this letter that no agricultural connections be sanctioned or released till targets are fixed by the Board and intimated by the Office of the Superintending Engineer. This direction was reiterated and it is this communication which is treated as instructions, of which breach is alleged by the delinquent Officers. 22. The misconduct, therefore, is indiscipline and breach of instructions contained in the letter dated, 20th June, 1984. In my opinion, a misconduct, for which disciplinary action can be taken against an employee must postulate a deliberate conduct to breach of discipline or violation of instructions. The breach of discipline or instructions must be with mens rea. Inadvertent indiscipline or ignorant violation of certain instructions would not normally, amount to a misconduct, for which penalty can be imposed.23. It has come on record that overshooting of the targets was a normal phenomena in several districts of the State of Rajasthan. There is no evidence on record to prove that the grant of or release of connections by the delinquent Executive Engineer resulted in overloading the transformer or caused certain loss to the Electricity Board. It has come on record that overshooting of the targets was a normal phenomena in several districts of the State of Rajasthan. There is no evidence on record to prove that the grant of or release of connections by the delinquent Executive Engineer resulted in overloading the transformer or caused certain loss to the Electricity Board. The Executive Engineer had given his explanation and there was no reaction to it for several weeks. From this factual position it can be reasonably inferred that the conduct of the Executive Engineer, in releasing those agricultural connections was overenthusiastic but it cannot be said to be a conduct calculated to defy discipline or violate instructions. A close scrutiny of the documents attached by the Board in this connection leads me to a conclusion that the Executive Engineer did not commit any deliberate misconduct or act of breach of discipline or breach of instructions so as to deserve a departmental enquiry and dismissal from service.24. The other petitioners in other writ petitions, were subordinates to the Executive Engineer. They carried out the orders of their Superior. There is no evidence, whatsoever, on record to show that they had even the knowledge of the instructions dated 20th June 1984. In the absence of any such evidence, firstly fastening the knowledge of the instructions on the Officers and secondly of their disobedience of those instructions, it was impermissible in law to find them guilty of the misconduct. In so far as the Subordinate Officers to the Executive Engineers are concerned, there is absolutely no material on record to warrant conviction.25. Taking into consideration the entire material on record, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that there was a technical breach of instructions at the hands of the Officers, it certainly was not such as to require such a severe punishment of dismissal from service in case of the Executive Engineer and stoppage of three increments in relation to the other Officers. In my opinion, the punishment inflicted is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged, even if it is held proved. On consideration of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the misconduct is not proved and, consequently, the punishment inflicted cannot be sustained.26. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The orders of punishments, issued by the Electricity Board, are set aside. On consideration of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the misconduct is not proved and, consequently, the punishment inflicted cannot be sustained.26. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The orders of punishments, issued by the Electricity Board, are set aside. Petitioner Iqbal Singh is directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefit. The punishment of other Officers of stoppage of increments, is quashed and set aside. They will also be entitled to consequential benefits such as proper fitment in the scales and grades in which they were working. The rule is, thus, made absolute. There will be no orders as to costs.Petitions allowed. *******