JUDGMENT 1. 1. Prayer for quashing the orders dated 23rd August, 1996 (Annexure-8) and 30th Nov. 1996 (Annexure-9) has been made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 2. Contextual facts depict that the departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Raj. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the Rules of 1958) was initiated against the petitioner. As many as six charges were levelled against him. The charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on May 5, 1986 for various acts of negligence. The Additional Commissioner-I was entrusted with the departmental enquiry of the petitioner, who submitted his report after conclusion of the proceedings in the month of Jan. 1988. In the said report none of the charges had been established against the petitioner. It appears that the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass the order dated December 31, 1988 imposing a penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed a review petition on June 21, 1989 under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958 against the order dated December 31, 1988. The Governor of Rajasthan vide order dated November 25, 1993 allowed the review petition and set aside the order of punishment and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to proceed further in the matter after furnishing reasons for disagreement with the finding of the enquiry officer. The petitioner submitted representation and thereafter on Feb. 7, 1995, the Department of Personnel respondent No.1 has sought comments on the said representation from the Rajasthan Housing Board. Vide letter dated June 19, 1996 the Rajasthan Housing Board furnished comments holding that there was no financial loss to the Board and the Board has already exonerated its officers, A. En. and J. En. who were working under the petitioner. The petitioner submitted writ petitions No. 1652 of 1988 and No. 2960 of 1990 pertaining to the departmental proceedings. Thereafter contempt petition was also filed by the petitioner in this court on August 8, 1996. On August 23, 1996 the respondent No.1 in view of the directions issued by the Governor under Rule 34 of the Rules 1958 passed an order again punishing the petitioner imposing the penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect. Thereafter contempt petition was also filed by the petitioner in this court on August 8, 1996. On August 23, 1996 the respondent No.1 in view of the directions issued by the Governor under Rule 34 of the Rules 1958 passed an order again punishing the petitioner imposing the penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect. The respondent No.1 also passed an order on November 30, 19% stating that in view of the punishment order dated August 23, 19% there was no need to hold the review DPC. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders dated August 23, 1996 (Annexure-8) and November 30, 1996 (Annexure-9) in the instant writ petition. 3. The respondent submitted reply to the writ petition raising objection in respect of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy of review before the Governor was not resorted by the petitioner. It has been averred that the reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. He was given personal hearing which he has acknowledged in his letter dated August 16, 1996 (Annexure R/1) and the impugned orders are neither illegal nor arbitrary. The disciplinary authority has right to disagree with the finding of the enquiry officer if he finds that the same are not supported by the material on record. The disciplinary authority had given cogent and detailed reasons for disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer which runs into 10 pages. It was also contended that the scope of judicial review in respect of the impugned orders is restricted in such matters. Reliance was placed on U.P. S.R.T.C. and others v. Har Narain Singh and others, JT 1998 (7) SC 437 State of Punjab v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, JT 1996 (5) SC 403 State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. S. Subramaniam, JT 1996 (2) SCC 114 State of Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena, (1998)3 SCC 385 Managing Director ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993)5 SLR 532 4. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record and case law cited before me. 5. In State of Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena (1998) 3 SCC 385 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus : "The Disciplinary Authority can disagree with the findings arrived at by the enquiring officer and act upon his own conclusion. 5. In State of Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena (1998) 3 SCC 385 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus : "The Disciplinary Authority can disagree with the findings arrived at by the enquiring officer and act upon his own conclusion. The only requirement is that the Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry officer. If the disciplinary authority gives reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Court cannot interfere with those findings unless it comes to the conclusion that no reasonable man can come to the said findings." 6. In the instant case the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that none of the six charges had been established against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the report of Enquiry Officer and imposed a penalty on the petitioner stopping three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. On a Review petition filed under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958, the Governor set aside the order of punishment and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority directing him to decide it afresh after recording reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It is therefore to be seen as to whether the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order, has recorded reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 7. I have closely scrutinised the report of Enquiry Officer, the order of the Governor and the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority. In view of the directions issued by the Governor it was expected from the Disciplinary Authority to refer the report of Enquiry Officer and to record the reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of each charge separately but I regret to notice that the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order dated August 23, 1996 (Annexure- 8) did not at all discuss the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Even the directions issued by the Governor has not been referred in the order. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty on the petitioner stopping three annual grade increments with cumulative effect without recording the reasons of his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thus the Disciplinary Authority acted mechanically and case warranting interference of this court is made out. 8. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dr. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty on the petitioner stopping three annual grade increments with cumulative effect without recording the reasons of his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thus the Disciplinary Authority acted mechanically and case warranting interference of this court is made out. 8. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh had occasion to deal with a situation where the enquiry was found faulty, it was held that "It is now well settled law that when the enquiry was found to be faulty, it could not be proper to direct reinstatement with consequential benefits. Matter requires to be remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to follow the procedure from the stage at which the fault was pointed out and to take action according to law." 9. Ratio of Dr. Harbhajan Singh's case (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Here the enquiry is not found faulty but the Disciplinary Authority acted upon his own conclusion without recording reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and awarded punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The order of Disciplinary Authority was set aside by the Governor and the matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to pass the order afresh after recording the reasons of his disagreement but again the reasons of disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, were not recorded and the order of punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect was passed mechanically. In my considered opinion the order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As one opportunity was already provided by the Governor to the Disciplinary Authority to record reasons, I do not think it reasonable to remit the case again to the Disciplinary Authority. 10. In the aforesaid premise the orders dated August 23, 1996 (Annexure-8) and November 30, 1996 (Annexure-9) are set aside and the respondents are directed to allow all consequential benefits to the petitioner in respect of seniority, promotion, annual grade increments etc. and to hold review DPC for considering the case of the petitioner to the next promotion. 11. The writ petition stands allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******