Honble PARIHAR, J.–Petitioner has challenged the order dated 28/01/1982 by which a penalty of dismissal from Government Service has been imposed on the petitioner after conducting enquiry U/R 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. (2). The petitioner was initially appointed as Supervisor on 16/03/1959. He was sent on deputation to the Food Corporation of India as Quality Inspector Grade-I on 5/11/1966 where he retained till 2/9/1968 at Bharatpur. Vide order dated 2/9/1968 the petitioner was reverted to his parent Department. (3). The petitioner was put under suspension by the Director of Agriculture Department, vide order dated 28/10/1968. A charge- sheet dt. 28/1/1969 was served upon the petitioner by the Director of Agriculture. However, the petitioner was directed to submit his written statement/reply to the memorandum to the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Ajmer Division, Jaipur within 15 days from the date of receipt of the communication. The petitioner, vide letter dated 5/2/1969 requested for supplying him documents for preparation of his reply to the above charge- sheet. Vide letter dt. 7/6/1969 the petitioner was asked to obtain the record as desired by him, from the Food Corporation of India, Jaipur. (4). The petitioner was served with an additional charge-sheet in continuation to the earlier charge-sheet dated 28/1/1969 vide letter dated 28/7/1969 and was asked to submit his reply to the additional charges as well. The additional charge- sheet was issued by Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ajmer Division, Jaipur himself. The petitioner vide letter dt. 19/08/1969 again requested for some information before replying to the additional charges. Vide letter dt. 19/08/1969 the petitioner was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer i.e. the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ajmer Division, Jaipur on 14th of September, 1969 and was also required to submit his reply and was informed that in case he did not appear, the ex-parte decision will be taken against him. (5). Again one more additional charge-sheet was issued by the Director of Agriculture on 23rd of February, 1970 in continuation to the initial charge-sheet dated 28/01/1969. Vide letter dt. 12/04/1971 petitioner again asked for copies of cer- tain documents mentioned therein. Thereafter, a consolidated charge-sheet was served on the petitioner alongwith a statement of allegations vide letter dt. 18th of May, 1971. The said consolidated charge- sheet was issued by Director of Agriculture. Vide letter dt. 12/04/1971 petitioner again asked for copies of cer- tain documents mentioned therein. Thereafter, a consolidated charge-sheet was served on the petitioner alongwith a statement of allegations vide letter dt. 18th of May, 1971. The said consolidated charge- sheet was issued by Director of Agriculture. However, the petitioner was again asked to submit his reply to Deputy Director, Agriculture, Ajmer division, Jaipur, who had already been appointed as Enquiry Officer long back. (6). In reply to the consolidated charge-sheet the petitioner again requested for supplying of copies of relevant documents for which he had already made representations time and again not only before the Enquiry Officer but to the Disciplinary Authority as well. (7). The Enquiry Officer wrote a letter to the Senior Assistant Manager, Food Corporation of India, Jaipur regarding fixing of date of the enquiry and also asking him to furnish the required documents to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 18.9.1971 Mr. P.D. Ajmera, Deputy Superintendent of Police (SPE), C.B.I., Jaipur and Mr. P. Saran, Senior Assistant Manager, Food Corporation of Indian, Central Training Institute, New-Delhi were appointed as Presenting Officers. The said letter was modified vide letter dt. 29/11/1971 and Mr. P.D.Ajmer, Dy. Superintendent of Police (SPE), C.B.I. Jaipur was required to appear during the course of enquiry as Investi- gating Officer only and not as Presenting Officer. The petitioner, vide letter dt. 27/12/1971 again requested for supplying copies of the record and also the relevant information. The Enquiry officer also asked the concerning officer of the F.C.I. to submit the record as required and asked for by the petitioner. (8). After conclusion of the Enquiry as show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alongwith the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and also the copy of the dis-agreement note. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation in reply to the show cause notice and also requested for personal hearing. The State Government, vide order dated 28/01/1982 imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. (9). The writ petition was admitted on 5/4/1982 and on the same day it was also directed by this Court that if the petitioner has not already handed over the change consequence to the order of dismissal he may not be called upon to hand over the charge for a period of four weeks. (9). The writ petition was admitted on 5/4/1982 and on the same day it was also directed by this Court that if the petitioner has not already handed over the change consequence to the order of dismissal he may not be called upon to hand over the charge for a period of four weeks. The stay application was again listed before this Court on 3/5/1982 and in absence of any counsel on behalf of the res- pondents who were duly served, the interm order passed by this Court on 5/4/1982 was confirmed. At the time of the hearing of the writ petition and on an enquiry made, counsel for the parties submitted that petitioner continued in service after passing of interim order by this Court and was retired on 29/10/1989 after reaching the age of superannuation. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that peti- tioner has already received pensionary benefits after his retirement. It may also be pertinent to mention here that after passing of the interim order passed by this Court on 5/4/1982 which was confirmed on 3/5/1982, on efforts were made by the respondents for getting the said order vacate or modified and even a reply to the writ petition has been filed only on 8/8/1996. (10). Mr. J.K. Singhi, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of dismissal on various grounds. His main contention is that initially the matter was investigated by the C.B.I.. However, when no sufficient material was available with them for prosecuting the petitioner, the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner at the instance of C.B.I. as well as the officials of F.C.I.. Subsequent events show nothing but victimisation and harassment of the petitioner. (11). Mr. Singhi has submitted that the whole disciplinary proceedings were in total violation of the Rules as well as the principles of natural justice. His main contention is that the Disciplinary Authority without application of mind had already appointed an Enquiry Officer and petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the Enquiry Officer only, who was not competent to do so. Again, in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner the relevant documents and informations were not supplied to the petitioner and, on the other hand, petitioner was asked to get the documents and informations from Food Corporation of India which is an independent body. Again, in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner the relevant documents and informations were not supplied to the petitioner and, on the other hand, petitioner was asked to get the documents and informations from Food Corporation of India which is an independent body. It was the duty of the Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer to get the documents and informations from Food Corporation of India and supply the same to the petitioner. (12). His another submissions is that the Disciplinary Authority was never sure about the charges to be levelled against the petitioner and additional charge-sheets were issued to the petitioner one after the other. Thereafter, even the consolidated charge-sheet was issued and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the enquiry officer only who had already been appointed long back at the time of issuing of initial charge- sheet. (13). Mr. Singhi has also submitted that Disciplinary Authority had no authority to appoint Officer from other agencies i.e. the Food Corporation of India as Presenting Officer and even there was no occasion for the C.B.I. official to be present during the enquiry. (14). Mr. Singhi has submitted that in-spite of above irregularities no charge has been held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has given reasons for his findings on each charge and allegation. However, the Disciplinary Authority without discussing the evidence on record disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority has given its comments only on the basis of report made by the C.B.I. and the officials of the Food Corporation of India. In disciplinary proceedings the charges have to be proved on the basis of material available on record. The Enquiry Officer has considered the entire material on record and has given his findings on each charge. (15). His another submission is that in reply to the show cause notice the petitioner has asked for personal hearing. However, without affording an opportunity of hearing the order of punishment was issued after more than 11 years of the incident. Mr. Singhi has relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Fool Chand vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others, (1) and judgment of Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan and Others, (2). (16). Mr. Mr. Singhi has relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Fool Chand vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others, (1) and judgment of Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan and Others, (2). (16). Mr. Maloo, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the punishment order has been passed by the Disciplinary Autho- rity after holding detailed proper enquiry in accordance with the Rules. The order of dismissal is a speaking order and there is no illegality in passing the same. Mr. Maloo has also submitted that Disciplinary Authority has given reasons while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and this Court under its writ jurisdiction has very limited powers so far as finding arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority are concerned. He has relied upon judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu and another vs. S. Subramaniam, (3). (17). I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and have also considered the submissions made by counsel for both sides and have also gone through the judgments cited at Bar. I have also gone through the original file which was submitted by counsel for the respondents. (18). This is one of those cases where some Authorities merely play in the hands of outside agencies. The incident alleged to have been of the year 1967-68. The C.B.I. investigated the matter and did not find any material so as to prosecute the petitioner of its own and referred the matter to the Government to initiate a Departmental Enquiry at the instance of the Food Corporation of India. From the chequered sequence of events, it is evident that even the State Government was not having any sufficient material to issue a proper charge-sheet to the petitioner. First charge- sheet was issued on 28/01/1969. When some information and record was called for by the petitioner, some charges were added to the initial charge- sheet issued on 28/01/1969. There was further addition to the charges in the initial charge-sheet, on 23/2/1970 and thereafter, more than a year a consolidated charge-sheet was issued on 18/05/1971. The enquiry report was submitted on 18/3/1976 and final order of punishment was issued only on 28/01/1982. (19). There was further addition to the charges in the initial charge-sheet, on 23/2/1970 and thereafter, more than a year a consolidated charge-sheet was issued on 18/05/1971. The enquiry report was submitted on 18/3/1976 and final order of punishment was issued only on 28/01/1982. (19). The indulgence of outside agencies is proved only from the fact that the Disciplinary Authority had already decided to hold a departmental enquiry at the time of issuance of charge-sheet. It was the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to first issue the charge-sheet and ask for explanation or reply from the delinquent officer and after considering the same, appoint an Enquiry Officer. However, in the present case, an enquiry officer had already been appointed at the time of issuing of charge-sheet on 28/01/1969 and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the Enquiry Officer only, which was not only in violation of Rule 16(2) and 16(4) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 but also the principles of natural justice in as much as without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner the Disciplinary Authority had already made up its mind to hold an enquiry at the instance of said agencies. (20). Apart from the glaring irregularities in so far as not supplying the relevant documents to the petitioner in spite of his repeated reminders, the indifference of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Enquiry Officer is proved from the fact that the petitioner was asked to get the relevant documents and informations from the outside agency himself. In my opinion, the Disciplinary Authority was not even justified in appointing an officer from Food Corporation of India as Presenting Officer and also Officer from C.B.I. to be present during the enquiry proceedings. Both these officers at the most could have been produced as witnesses. However, there presence as Presenting Officer and Investigating Officer shows that they were trying to prejudice the mind of the Enquiry Officer. (21). I have gone through the enquiry report carefully. The Enquiry Officer has discussed each and every charge and allegation alongwith relevant documents and statement of witnesses and has given his reasons for holding the charges not to be proved. I have also gone through the disagreement note given by the S.S.O. on the original file. (21). I have gone through the enquiry report carefully. The Enquiry Officer has discussed each and every charge and allegation alongwith relevant documents and statement of witnesses and has given his reasons for holding the charges not to be proved. I have also gone through the disagreement note given by the S.S.O. on the original file. The disciplinary Authority in disagreement note has not discussed the evidence on record at all and has made up its mind only on the comments made by S.S.O., C.B.I. Official and the official from the Food Corporation of India. (22). It is a very strange case that before issuing a show cause notice or giving the disagreement note the enquiry report was referred to the C.B.I. Officials and the Officials of Food Corporation of India for their comments. It was the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to go through the material on record himself and give its own conclusions if he disagrees with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. In the present case, after having gone through the entire material on record, I am of the view that the Disciplinary Authority was solely guided by the comments made by the officials of the C.B.I. as well as the officials of Food Corporation of India and has not given its independent finding. (23). It is well established law that burden of proof is always on the prosecu- tion side. The prosecution has to lay the entire material on record before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charges. The charges cannot be held to be proved on the basis of conjuctures, surmises and comments made by any other Investigating Agency who made preliminary enquiry prior to holding of a proper regular enquiry. (24). In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I need not discuss the authorities, cited by both the counsels. However, so far as judgment of Apex Court in the case of S. Subramaniam (supra) as referred by counsel for the respondent is concerned, this Court can always go through the entire material on record and scrutinise the same when there is a detailed report by the Enquiry Officer and the disagreement note made by the Disciplinary Authority. In the pre- sent case, there is not only violation of Rules, but also violation of principles of natural justice as well and the order of punishment is liable to set aside. (25). In the pre- sent case, there is not only violation of Rules, but also violation of principles of natural justice as well and the order of punishment is liable to set aside. (25). Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dt. 28/01/1982 (Annexure-27) is set aside. The petitioner is held entitled for all consequential benefits. Petitioner has already retired from service on 21/10/1989 the res- pondents are directed to make all remaining payments to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Since the petitioner was continuing in his service after passing of the impugned order of dismissal in view of interim order passed by this court, there will be no order as to costs.