JUDGMENT 1. - The instant Special Appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the order dated 28.1.1983 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for final decision of appeal on merits are that the appellant was appointed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Lucknow Division on 20.9.1957 as Sanitary Inspector in the Northern Railway. The post of Sanitary Inspector is of Class III. While the appellant was serving at Sirsa in Bikaner Division, he was served upon a chargesheet by the Divisional Engineer-II, Bikaner informing him to the effect that he proposed to hold an enquiry against him under Rules 1708 to 1715 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1968'). This memo was accompanied by statement of charges and statement of allegations vide Annexure 3 and 4 to the writ petition. The statement of allegations on the basis of which charges were framed against the appellant are reproduced below : "1. Shri Sukhnandan Swaroop was posted as Sanitary Inspector, Northern Railway Station Rosa during 1962 to 1964. During this period he indulged in corrupt practices and he pressed Shri Sohan Lal s/o Shiv Dayal Substitute Safaiwala working under him to give him bribe or he would be removed from service. Shri Sohan Lal arranged to get Shri Sukhnandan Swaroop arrested red-handed and on 17.6.64 at about noon at the office-cum-residence of Shri Sukhnandan Swaroop at Railway Colony Rosa when Shri Sukhnandan Swaroop demanded and accepted Rs. 40/- as the installment of the said bribe amount, he was caught hold red-handed by the raiding party. 2. It was found that said Shri Sukhnandan Swaroop had been habitually corrupt during the aforesaid period as he settled bribe from various casual labourers including S/Shri Mithoo s/o Ram Charan, Shanker s/o Maikoo, Baboo Lal s/o Puttoo, Pancham s/o Sumer, Chhotey s/o Teja, Abdul Salam s/o Khuda Bux Bhishty and Cheda s/o Dewan who had been working under him for continuing their service while working as casual labourers. He also settled bribe money and accepted the same at the time when they were appointed as substitute Safaiwala by him. 3. He also settled bribe money and accepted the same at the time when they were appointed as substitute Safaiwala by him. 3. He also advanced loan money to the various Safaiwalas and casual labourers working under him regularly during the aforesaid period and he received interest from them which was a source of income to him. Thus, Shri Sukhnandan Swaroop failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and contravened Rule No. 3 of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rides, 1956." 3. It would be pertinent to reproduce the charges framed against the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid statement of allegations, which is on record as Annexure 4:- "That Shri Sukhnandan Swaroop while working as Sanitary Inspector, Rosa during the years 1962 to 1964 committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devolution to duty inasmuch as he (i) settled a bribe from Shri Sohan Lal s/o Shiv Dayal at the time of his appointment as Substitute Safaiwala and on 17.6.64 demanded and accepted Rs. 40/- as the installment of the said bribe amount at his office-cum-residence in Railway Colony, Rosa. (ii) That Shri Sukhnandan Swaroop was habitually corrupt during the said period inasmuch as, he settled and accepted bribe from various casual labourers including S/Shri Mithoo s/o Ram Charan, Shankar s/o Maikoo, Babu Lal s/o Puttoo, Pancham s/o Sumer, Chhotey s/o Teja, Abdul Salam s/o Khuda Bux Bhisty and Cheda s/o Diwan working under him for continuance of their service while working as casual labourers and also settled bribe and accepted the same from the said casual labourers at the time of their appointment as substitute Safaiwalas. (iii) Being a public servant Shri Sukhnandan Swaroop also advanced loan money to the various Safaiwalas working under him and received interest money on the same and has thereby contravened Rule 3 of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1956." 4. The appellant submitted reply to the aforesaid statements of allegations and charges, which were sent to him by Memorandum dated 29.5.65 and thereafter, an enquiry was conducted into the said charges. 5. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 12.8.72 (Ex. 9) to the writ petition found that charges Nos. 1 and 3 had been proved but charge No. 2 had not been proved. 5. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 12.8.72 (Ex. 9) to the writ petition found that charges Nos. 1 and 3 had been proved but charge No. 2 had not been proved. After taking into consideration the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 12.8.72, the Divisional Medical Officer, Bikaner by his Memorandum dated 1.9.72 informed the appellant that on careful consideration of the enquiry report, he was in agreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer that Charges No. 1 and 3 were proved and that he had provisionally come to the conclusion that the appellant was not fit person to be retained in service, therefore, he was proposing to impose a penalty of removal from service on the appellant. 6. By the aforesaid Memorandum, the appellant was given an opportunity to make representation on the penalty proposed and was directed to submit his explanation within 14 days from the date of receipt of the said memorandum. 7. In response to the said show-cause notice, the appellant submitted his reply on 7.11.72, upon which, the Divisional Medical Officer passed an order, whereby, a penalty of reduction in the same time scale by four stages i.e. from Rs. 205 to Rs. 181/- per month for a period of one year with the effect of postponing his future increments was imposed on the appellant. The aforesaid order of punishment was communicated to the appellant by notice of imposition of penalty vide Annexure A of Ex. 10 dated 15.12.72. 8. It is evident from the record that after receipt of the aforesaid notice dated 15.12.72, the appellant addressed a letter on 5.4.73 to the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bikaner wherein he requested that he should be supplied a copy of the reasons and grounds to apprise him as to why the explanation submitted by him was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority, so that the appellant may prefer an appeal. 9. In reply to the aforesaid letter of the appellant dated 5.4.73, the Divisional Medical Officer by his letter dated 24.4.73 informed the appellant that the grounds and reasons had been recorded in Annexure A to the communication dated 15.2.73 and there was nothing further to add in it. If the appellant so desired could file an appeal to the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bikaner without any loss of time. 10. If the appellant so desired could file an appeal to the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bikaner without any loss of time. 10. It is evident from perusal of the material available on record that the appellant did not file any appeal in pursuance of the aforesaid letter dated 24.4.73 written by the Divisional Medical Officer, Bikaner. 11. A show cause notice dated 12.6.73 was issued to the appellant by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bikaner whereby the appellant was informed that the Divisional Superintendent considered the gravity of the offences committed by the appellant, which warrant a severer form of punishment and that the punishment already awarded, was inadequate. The aforesaid show-cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bikaner in exercise of his powers under Rule 25(1) of the Rules of 1968. In fact, the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bikaner had reviewed the case and the appellant was called upon to show-cause in writing why the enhanced penalty of removal from service should not be imposed upon him. In pursuance of the aforesaid show-cause notice, the appellant submitted his reply on 22.6.73 The Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway vide his order dated 5.9.93 Ex. 12 to the writ petition informed the appellant that the penalty of removal from service with immediate effect, has been imposed upon him. 12. Against the order dated 5.9.73 passed by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bikaner the appellant filed an appeal before the Chief Medical Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi, who dismissed the appeal. 13. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order of dismissal of appeal by the Chief Medical Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi dated 10.6.74 (Ex. 13), against the order of removal from service dated 5.9.73 (Ex. 12) passed by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bikaner and against the order dated 15.12.72 passed by the Divisional Medical Officer, Northern Railway (Ex. 10), preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court seeking relief to quash the aforesaid three orders. The petitioner further sought relief directing the answering respondents to put him back in service in the position as if the aforesaid impugned orders were not passed against him with all consequential benefits regarding salary etc. 14. After service of notice, the answering respondents filed a detailed return denying emphatically the averments made in the writ petition. The petitioner further sought relief directing the answering respondents to put him back in service in the position as if the aforesaid impugned orders were not passed against him with all consequential benefits regarding salary etc. 14. After service of notice, the answering respondents filed a detailed return denying emphatically the averments made in the writ petition. According to the return filed by the answering respondents, the impugned orders were averred to be eminently just and proper. 15. Learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the answering respondents at length and after critically examining the material available on record, dismissed the writ petition against which the petitioner has preferred the instant special appeal. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have critically gone through the material available on record. 17. The main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the present special appeal can be allowed on the basis of the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge himself for the effect that the order passed in appeal by the Chief Medical Officer does not contain reasons for rejecting the petitioner's submissions disclosed in the memo of appeal filed by him before him. 18. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is not acceptable to us, inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons to repel the aforesaid argument with which we are in full agreement. Learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that all those submissions which contained in the memo of appeal filed by the appellant before the Chief Medical Officer, were urged before him and they have been rejected by him. In view of the aforesaid finding, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified to hold that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case to the appellate authority on the ground that it is not a speaking order. 19. There is yet another reason not to accept the aforesaid argument raised on behalf of the appellant. In view of the aforesaid finding, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified to hold that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case to the appellate authority on the ground that it is not a speaking order. 19. There is yet another reason not to accept the aforesaid argument raised on behalf of the appellant. A writ of certiorari as prayed in the present writ petition, cannot be issued as a matter of course but it can be issued only in cases of excess of authority or flagrant and palpable violation of law causing a grave and manifest miscarriage of justice. Nothing has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the present case either excess of authority or flagrant and palpable violation of law causing a grave and manifest miscarriage of justice to the appellant. 20. A close scrutiny of the statement of allegations (Ex. 3) and statement of charges against the appellant (El. 4) reveal that he was posted as Sanitary Inspector at Railway Station, Rosa during the years from 1962 to 1964. During this period, he indulged in corrupt practice and he pressed Shri Sohal Lal Substitute Safaiwala working under him to give him bribe failing which he was threatened to be removed from service by the appellant. The first charge against the appellant was that Shri Sohan Lal arraigned and arranged to get the appellant arrested red-handed on 17.6.64 at about noon at the office-cum-residence of the appellant situated in Railway Colony, Rosa. The appellant demanded and accepted Rs. 40/- as instalment of the said bribe amount. He was caught hold by the raiding party. The third charge against the appellant was that he being the public servant used to advance loan money to the various Safaiwalas working under him and received interest money on the same contravening Rule 3 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1956. Since Charge No. 2 was not proved, therefore, it is being omitted from our discussion. 21. A close scrutiny of the enquiry report (Ex. Since Charge No. 2 was not proved, therefore, it is being omitted from our discussion. 21. A close scrutiny of the enquiry report (Ex. 9) to the writ petition leads towards an irresistible conclusion that the Enquiry Officer, after examination the witnesses produced on behalf of the Railway administration, defence witnesses produced by the appellant, after examining number of documents and after analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence came to this conclusion that Charges No. 1 and 3 were proved while Charge No. 2 was not proved against the appellant. The punishing authority after applying his mind to the material available on record has passed order of removal from service against the appellant. 22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the first contention raised on behalf of the appellant is devoid of merit and it is hereby rejected. 23. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Divisional Engineer-II was not an officer competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and that the Divisional Medical Officer, Northern Railway, Bikaner who has imposed punishment in these disciplinary proceedings was not disciplinary authority, who could impose punishment on the appellant, therefore, the entire disciplinary proceedings were null and void. The aforesaid argument was also raised before the learned Single Judge which has been rejected giving cogent and convincing reasons with which we are at one. In our considered opinion, in view of the reply filed on behalf of the answering-respondents, the Divisional Medical Officer, Northern Railway, Bikaner was competent to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and impose penalty on the appellant and a contention contrary to it, is not acceptable to us. 24. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant before us that the appellant was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing. We are not satisfied with the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, 25. A close scrutiny of the materials available on record reveal that specific statements of allegations and specific charges were framed and were served upon the appellant. Earlier Assistant Enquiry Officer/II. Northern Railway, New Delhi was nominated the Divisional Medical Officer, Bikaner on 25.2.66 to conduct the disciplinary enquiry against the appellant. A close scrutiny of the materials available on record reveal that specific statements of allegations and specific charges were framed and were served upon the appellant. Earlier Assistant Enquiry Officer/II. Northern Railway, New Delhi was nominated the Divisional Medical Officer, Bikaner on 25.2.66 to conduct the disciplinary enquiry against the appellant. The said Enquiry Officer presented the charges leveled against the appellant and he also recorded the statements of various witnesses adduced on behalf of the Railway administration from time to time. Subsequently, on surrendering the post of Enquiry Officer II, Northern Railway, New Delhi Shri Kartar Singh, Assistant Vigilance Officer, Baroda House, Northern Railway, New Delhi was nominated on 3.3.66 to conduct the disciplinary enquiry against the appellant. The Assistant Vigilance Officer held various sittings and recorded statements of remaining witnesses adduced on behalf of Railway Administration. Due to impending retirement of Shri Kartar Singh, Assistant Vigilance Officer, Dr. N.K. Kohli was nominated as Enquiry Officer in the case on 1.1.71 who has recorded the statements of the appellant and his defence witnesses. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the appellant in the present case. 26. After conclusion of enquiry, a show-cause notice was given to the appellant by the disciplinary authority asking him to file his explanation against the enquiry report. The defence of the appellant was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority in the light of the oral and documentary evidence adduced during the enquiry substantiating the charges No. 1 and 3 against him. Instead of imposing the penalty of removal from service, the disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view and imposed upon the appellant a penalty of reduction in the same time scale by four stages i.e. from Rs. 205/ to Rs. 181/- per month for a period of one year with effect of postponing his future increments. 27. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bikaner, he reviewed the case of the appellant under Rule 25(1) of the Rules of 1968 and felt that notice to enhance the penalty awarded by the Divisional Medical Officer dated 15.12.72 deserves to be issued to the appellant. A show-cause notice was accordingly issued to the appellant on 12.6.73 and he was asked to submit his defence. A show-cause notice was accordingly issued to the appellant on 12.6.73 and he was asked to submit his defence. Instead of filing any reply, the appellant sent a draft writ petition, which was taken into account by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bikaner and imposed a penalty of removal from service. 28. A close scrutiny of the material available on record throws a flood of light that at every stage of disciplinary proceedings, the appellant was given opportunity of hearing hence, an argument contrary to it, is not acceptable to us. 29. It is apparent on the face of the record that the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bikaner after considering the evidence on record had come to the conclusion that notwithstanding the service record of the appellant, he is not a fit person to be retained in service and that, he should be removed from services. Thus, the Divisional Superintendent Northern Railway, Bikaner before enhancing the penalty that was imposed by the disciplinary authority, had carefully considered the report of the Enquiry Officer, the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the reply submitted by the appellant to the show-cause notice for enhancement of penalty and after taking into consideration all materials, he felt that the penalty that was imposed on the appellant by the disciplinary authority was not adequate and that in spite of the past record of service, the appellant was not a fit person to be retained in service, therefore, he should be removed from service. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is not possible for us to hold that the penalty of removal from service imposed by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bikaner has either occasioned a failure of justice or amounted miscarriage of justice to the appellant. 30. We are fully satisfied that by the impugned judgment tendered by the learned Single Judge, justice has been done to the parties, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference in the instant special appeal.As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the instant special appeal lacks merit and as such is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. *******