JUDGMENT 1. 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Enquiry Officer imposing the penalty of censure on the petitioner as well as the decision of the appellate authority imposing the penalty of with-holding of 3 grade increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner. 2. The facts giving rise to the filling of this writ petition briefly stated, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Compounder in the Regional Research Institute (for short 'RRI') (Ayurvedic), Jaipur with effect from 15-3-75. The Assistant Director, RRI had served a memorandum containing imputation of charges of misconduct and mis-behvaiour against the petitioner dated 20-1-88 vide Annex-1.The petitioner was directed to submit his reply within 10 days from the receipt of the memorandum and was also provided opportunity of hearing by giving him opportunity of filing written statement. The petitioner filed his reply to the said memorandum in respect of the charges and also sought an opportunity for hearing before the Enquiry Officer which he was given by the respondents. The Enquiry Committee of 3 senior officers were appointed to examine the veracity of the charges against the petitioner. It has been contended by the petitioner that he was not given the copy of some of the statements of the witnesses as detailed in para 5 of the writ petition and moreover the statement of Smt. Begama, the complainant was also not recorded in the presence of the petitioner. Alternatively it has been pleaded that the statement of the complainant which was recorded on 10th August, 1988 was not justified since no notice of the same was given to the petitioner and was recorded behind the back of the petitioner. Moreover the petitioner was not given any opportunity of cross-examining the complainant since copy of her statement was not supplied to the petitioner, in gross violation of principles of natural Justice. 3. Subsequently vide order dated 29-9-88, the Asstt. Director, Incharge of RRI revoked the suspension order in exercise of the powers conferred by bye-laws 46 read with Clause (c) of Sub-Rule 5 of the Rule 10 of the CCA Rules vide Annex-13. 4. Vide order dated 7-10-88, the penalty of 'Censure was imposed on the petitioner with the forfeiture of pay and allowances of the suspension period excluding the subsistance allowance vide Annex-14. 5. 4. Vide order dated 7-10-88, the penalty of 'Censure was imposed on the petitioner with the forfeiture of pay and allowances of the suspension period excluding the subsistance allowance vide Annex-14. 5. Against the order of penalty dated 7-10-88, as referred to above, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director of Central Council for RRI at New Delhi (respondent No. 2) but strangely enough the appellate authority not only disagreed with the adequacy of penalty imposed on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority but also expressed its dissent with the findings of the Enquiry Committee and found the charges proved. The Appellate Authority respondent No. 2 enhanced the penalty by reducing the 3 grade increments with cumulative effect in addition to the penalty already imposed by the Enquiry Committee which was modified into a major penalty vide impugned order dated 13-2-89 ( Annex-15). 6. The Enquiry, as referred to above, was initiated against the petitioner on the alleged complaint of a female patient Smt. Begam. There were allegations of misbehaviour against the petitioner while the said patient Smt. Begama was hospitalised and the petitioner was entrusted with the task of taking care of several patients who were hospitalised along with Smt. Begama The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid impugned order dated 7-10-88 (Annex-15) passed by the Appellate Authority enhancing the penalty on the ground that on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner has been falsely implicated since none of the witnesses who were examined during the course of enquiry have supported the prosecution case. It has further been contended in the grounds that even the Enquiry Committee consisting of 3 senior officials have not found the charges as proved. It has further been contended by the petitioner that he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses including the complainant and as such the whole proceedings before the Enquiry Officer stood vitiated and the penalty imposed on the petitioner is violative of the principles of natural justice as well as Rules 15 to 17 of the CCA Rules. 7. In the reply which has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondents have controverted the stand adopted by the petitioner by contending therein that all the relevant documents including the statements of witnesses were supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner has not stated true facts before the Court. 7. In the reply which has been filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondents have controverted the stand adopted by the petitioner by contending therein that all the relevant documents including the statements of witnesses were supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner has not stated true facts before the Court. In para 7 of the reply the respondents have contended that having regard to the findings of the Inquiry Committee which was duly constituted under the Rules and the Bye-laws bad taken into consideration the report dated 7-5-88 and having examined the entire record in exercise of the powers conferred upon it, the conclusion reached by the Inquiry Committee was justified and since the charges were not found proved except the misbehaviour of the petitioner with the complaint on the basis of the material on the record and accordingly the respondent No. 1 in its discretion, while taking note of the events and the facts as well as the circumstances had rightly awarded the penalty of censure to the petitioner. 8. During the course of hearing Shri J.P. Goyal, learned Counsel for the respondents has stated at the bar that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the decision of the appellate authority on the basis of the material on record; was Justified. This contention of Shri Goyal has been controverted by Shri Mishra who has stated that even as per the reply filed by the respondents no case is made out for sustaining the decision of the appellate authority in as much as from a perusal of para 7 of the reply it is explicitly clear that the articles of charges as framed against the petitioner were not found proved because the charge regarding misbehaviour of the petitioner with the complainant for which the minor penalty of censure has already been awarded to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and has further argued at the bar that there was no justification for the appellate authority to have taken contrary view of the matter by enhancing the penalty to reduction in 3 grade increments and reversing thereby the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. 9. 9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having examined the relevant documents place on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 7.10.88 (Annex-14) imposing the penalty of censure on the petitioner is sustained and that of the Appellate Authority dated 13.2.89 (Annex-15) is quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above and the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 7.10.88 is sustained and that of the Appellate Authority dated 13.2.89 is quashed and set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition partly allowed. *******