Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner who was initially recruited as Junior Engineer in 1959 in the service of Rajasthan State Electricity Board (now Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited) was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1960, Executive Engineer in the year 1970 and as Superintending Engineer in the year 1979 and is aggrieved against the order dated 24.6.1989 (Annex.10) by which order he was compulsorily retired from service of the said Board. (2). The petitioner is governed under the Regulations of 1962 called Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962 and was charge-sheeted on 11.3.1985 by the Secretary of the Board for the proposed enquiry under Regulation 7 on the statement of charges as Annex.1. (3). During the pendency of the charge-sheet dated 11.3.1985, the petitioner was also issued a separate memorandum dated 25.6.1985 about telegram Annex.2 whereby instructions were issued that the secret letter containing charges was to be issued to the petitioner and, therefore, he would remain in the office. It is the allegation of the petitioner that when such letter was received, it was not closed or sealed and he had taken objection to that respect which was considered to be insubordination and, therefore, another memo was also issued to him vide Annex.3 on he ground that he had refused to accept the service and his refusal was considered as a gross misconduct. He was asked to receive the charge-sheet from the Deputy Chief Engineer, Udaipur Zone. (4). The petitioner had questioned the issuing of charge-sheet before the authorities and asked for inspection of record etc. as stated by him in the petition. He had also sought permission to obtain the copies and the documents and to engage the lawyer in view of technical and legal matter involved. His request for engaging the lawyer was rejected. (5). The enquiry officer had submitted his report on 31.5.1989. Ultimately the Board had taken a decision on 23.6.1989 to compulsory retire the petitioner and he was retired vide order dated 24.6.1989 (Annex.10). The petitioner challenges the order Annex.10 on the grounds; (1) that the was not issued a show cause notice containing the proposal to the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement and that he was not given a copy of the enquiry report as well; (2) the petitioner states that he was Secretary of the Association called Electricity Board Engineers Association from 1970 to 1975. He was elected as President in the year 1982 and was still the President while he was charge-sheeted and for the reason that he had exposed to cause of the fellow engineers which had caused annoyance to the authorities specially to Shri R.C. Dave Chairman of the Board. For the activities of the association, the petitioner had been victimized. He had given certain instances where the association had been taking up the matter right up to High Court and agitating other similar matters which according to the petitioner had caused the dis-satisfaction with the respondents; (3) Other grounds on which the order is being challenged is that only authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was the Board of Directors and not the Secretary of the Board and delegation of powers of the Board to the Chairman by administrative order was illegal and statutory Regulation 7 could not be amended or substituted by executive orders; (4) that the charges are vague and there is a pre-determination of mind; (5) refusing to be assisted by a lawyer had infringed the principles assisted by a lawyer had infringed the principles of natural justice; (6) that the enquiry report was not given to the petitioner; (7) that there was no application of mind by the competent authority. (6). The petitioner has alleged certain actions showing the bias and victimization and enumerated in Annex-8 of the writ petition right from 1973 to the date of retirement and that the Chairman against whom the allegations were levelled against him in the certain writ petition had taken active part against the petition. (7). Annex.9A dated 2.7.1980 is the order whereby in the meeting No. 290 held on 10.6.1980 the Board had decided to delegate the powers to the Chairman for serving the statement of allegations and charge-sheets for imposing major penalty on the officers as per Annex. attached other than Assistant Engineers in whose cases the Board was appointing authority. It is also mentioned, therein, the statement of allegations and charge-sheet for imposing major penalties on the officers in whose cases the Board is appointing authority would be served by/ under the authority of the Chairman in regard to Schedule II. attached other than Assistant Engineers in whose cases the Board was appointing authority. It is also mentioned, therein, the statement of allegations and charge-sheet for imposing major penalties on the officers in whose cases the Board is appointing authority would be served by/ under the authority of the Chairman in regard to Schedule II. As per Annexure-9A, the competent authority to appoint the Superintending Engineer is the Board and the competent authority to suspend is the Chairman in consultation with the Technical Member and for major penalty it is once again the Board who can impose major penalty on the officer above the rank of the A.En. (8). It is stated in the reply that the petitioner had refused to acknowledge and accept the papers of the charge-sheet for the reason that he was of the opinion that the papers were required to be handed over to him by the Head of Department and for such a refusal to accept the charge-sheet could not be considered to be a misconduct. It is also admitted that the Secretary had issued memorandum of charge-sheet under the orders of the Chairman who is said to have been delegated the powers in pursuance of the Boards decision in its 29th meeting dated 20.6.1980. Annex. R- 1/3 is a letter of the Special Secretary mentioning therein that the Board had considered the position as in the agenda and after perusing the enquiry report and other relevant record the Board had accepted the report of the enquiry officer. Even though one of the Member of the Board Shri R.C. Dave i.e. Chairman had indicated that since the petitioner as a President of Association had filed a civil writ petition making allegation against him in the High Court of Rajasthan, but he would not like to express his words and he would go with the words of the Members and after detailed discussion the report of the enquiry officer was accepted and for taking action against the petitioner. (9). Respondent No. 2 Shri R.C. Dave has also filed his affidavit. He states that the charge-sheet was issued in regard to certain irregularities pointed out by the audit report. While denying the allegations of malafide, he has attached as Annex-R- 2/1 saying that the Chairman had inherent power to exercise the powers vested in any subordinate authority or officer of the Board. He states that the charge-sheet was issued in regard to certain irregularities pointed out by the audit report. While denying the allegations of malafide, he has attached as Annex-R- 2/1 saying that the Chairman had inherent power to exercise the powers vested in any subordinate authority or officer of the Board. Annexure R-2/1 does not help the respondent for the proposition that Chairman had even been delegated the powers of the Board. Annexure-R-2/2 is the agenda only for the meeting 334 dated 20.3.1984 of the Board for proposal for issuing the chargesheet to the petitioner. But after going through the other agendas of the meeting in Original register No. 334 dated 20.3.1984 even though I find that there are agendas put before the Board in regard to other officers but there is no specific agenda ever put or discussed relating to the petitioner except agenda No. 334.12 which only says that it is confidential agenda without mentioning any detail or any matter or any discussion. The petitioner is not at all named in agenda No. 334.12. Chargesheet has been signed by the Secretary. Annex.R-2/4 is the delegation of power to the Chairman for serving statement of allegation and charge-sheet for imposing major penalty as per Appendix attached on the officers other than Assistant Engineer but it limits it only upto the officer of the rank of lower than the Assistant Engineer only. (10). In the 334th meeting held on 20.3.1984 at 4.00 p.m. as per the averments by the respondents, the following agenda was put up before the Board (Agenda No.334.12) ``Confidential Agenda Item The Board authorised the Chairman to take appropriate action in the matter. (11). Original register was called. Even in the original register does not mention any fact, particulars or subject of that confidential matter which might have been put to the Board. The Agenda is `confidential agenda item and the decision is that `the Board authorised the Chairman to take appropriate action in the matter. This agenda does not speak at all about the disciplinary action of being taken against the present petitioner. If agenda No. 334.12 as reproduced above related to the petitioner, it should have been mentioned therein along with details, subject and discussion of the agenda which has not been done in the present case. This agenda does not speak at all about the disciplinary action of being taken against the present petitioner. If agenda No. 334.12 as reproduced above related to the petitioner, it should have been mentioned therein along with details, subject and discussion of the agenda which has not been done in the present case. If above-said agenda 334.12 is the only authorisation of consideration of issuance of charge-sheet, it does not conform of requirement. The respondent has placed on record as Annex.R-2/2 in relation to agenda for 334th meeting held on 20.3.1984 which relates to the proposal to consider about initiation the disciplinary proceedings against R.C. Kaushik but whether his case was placed for consideration before the Board is not coming out at all, as no such agenda ever became the subject matter of 334th meeting, nor any such agenda is mentioned in this meeting except the vague and uncertain agenda 334.12 which has been reproduced above. (12). This very agenda 334.12 again came up for consideration in the next meeting i.e. 335th meeting on 29.3.1984 wherein agenda No. 334.12 is said to have been substituted wherein certain loan assistance of Rs. 164.713 lacs was discussed in detail and further loan assistance of Rs. 281.286 lacs was discussed with the resolution passed thereon of execution of work and not of any action against the petitioner. (13). If there was addition or substitution in the agenda No.334.12 in the next ensuing 335th meeting and the substitution related to only certain proposals in regard to loan assistance about Rs. 281 lacs and execution of work, it cannot be said that agenda No. 334.12 would be taken to have relating to the petitioner authorising the Chairman to take action. If any agenda 334.12 would be relating to the petitioner, there was no reason as to why the details of agenda in regard to the petitioner could not be given, which is not so. (14). In Schedule II attached to the Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962 (here-in-after called the regulations) in regard to Superintending Engineer the authority to suspend such an officer vests in the Chairman in consultation with the Technical Member and for imposing major penalties, Board is the competent authority. (15). Rule 7 provides the procedure for holding the enquiry against the delinquent official. (15). Rule 7 provides the procedure for holding the enquiry against the delinquent official. Rule 7(vii) prescribes that the inquiring authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry recording its findings on each of the charges together with the reasons therefore, and shall send the report to the Disciplinary Authority, along with the record of inquiry, consisting of statement of charges and statement of allegations given to the employee, his written defence, evidence; oral and documentary, in the course of enquiry. Rule 7(viii) prescribes that the disciplinary authority shall consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge. Part of Rule 7(ix) prescribes that if the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified at serial numbers (e) to (h) should be imposed, it shall make an order imposing such penalty. (16). Counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 7(viii) has not been complied and assuming that the matter was placed before the Board, the Board had neither discussed nor given any reasons each of the charge in its meeting. (17). Record has been produced and after going into the record, I find that one Director had reported to the Chairman for institution of departmental inquiry for major penalty with the suggestion that the chairman should take appropriate action as authorised by the Board which was sent to the Chairman on 4.3.1985 as per note 47. The Chairman had not signed it but it was signed by the Secretary on 4.3.1985. The case was put up before the Secretary vide note No. 49 for signatures on the Charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was sent to Udaipur with the direction that the petitioner should collect it from the officer concerned which had also become a matter or controversy and the Assistant Secretary vide Note Nos. 54, 55, 56 and 57 had opined that by not accepting the charge-sheet from the officer, the petitioner had misconducted grossly. He had put a proposal for suspending the petitioner. The Deputy Secretary (Inquiry) had further added that the petitioner be put under suspension. The matter of suspension was sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Secretary/Chairman/Member (T & D), but it was only the Member (T & D) who had signed it on 20.3.1985. He had put a proposal for suspending the petitioner. The Deputy Secretary (Inquiry) had further added that the petitioner be put under suspension. The matter of suspension was sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Secretary/Chairman/Member (T & D), but it was only the Member (T & D) who had signed it on 20.3.1985. The Assistant Secretary once again discussed the matter with the Chairman on 17.4.1985 with the proposal to appoint enquiry officer and the Presenting Officer. The Chairman had agreed with the proposal on 3.5.1985, but on 4.5.1985 there was a note that the Chairman should ascertain whether the petitioner had received the charge- sheet or not. As per note 70 the charge-sheet was delivered on 9.5.1985. The Inquiry Officer was immediately appointed. Vide Note 94 and 95 the Deputy Secretary (Inquiries) had observed that there is no necessity to show record asked by the petitioner. After the submission of the inquiry report the matter is dealt by the Secretary on 9.6.1989 vide note No. 117 with the recommendations that out of 12 allegations four allegations had been fully established, 5 had been partly established and three had not been established. The Secretary reiterated the allegations Nos. 1 to 12 in note No. 117. He had sent it to the Chairman and the Chairman agreed on 9.6.1989 that it should be put up before that Board. The Board held the meeting on 23.6.1989 at 3.30 p.m. with as many as about 20 other agendas on that date including the agenda No. 388.16 in regard to disciplinary action to be taken against the petitioner Superintending Engineer. Whole of the agenda and decision as per the original register reads as under:- ``Disciplinary action against Shri R.C. Kaushik, Superintending Engineer. ``The Board considered the position as brought out in the agenda note and perused the report given by the Enquiry Officer- Shri P.K.B. Kurup (I.A.S. Retd.) and also the other relevant records produced at the time of the meeting. ``The Board considered the position as brought out in the agenda note and perused the report given by the Enquiry Officer- Shri P.K.B. Kurup (I.A.S. Retd.) and also the other relevant records produced at the time of the meeting. During the course of deliberations, Shri R.C. Dave, Chairman indicated that since Shri R.C. Kaushik, as President of the RSEB Engineers Association, had filed writ petition making allegations against him in the High Court of Rajasthan, as also a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court, though the writ petition as well as SLP were dismissed, nevertheless in view of the above he would not like to express his views in the matter, but would go with the decision of the other Members in this case. After detailed discussions and careful consideration, the Board accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer, and in view of the serious charges as proved in the findings of the Enquiry Officer decided, in exercise of the powers of the appointing authority (i.e. Board) conferred under Regulation-5(1) of the RSEB Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1962, to impose upon Shri R.C. Kaushik, Superintending Engineer, the penalty of compulsory retirement from the service with immediate effect. (18). Above decision only states that the Board has accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer in view of serious charges as proved and exercising the powers the appointing authority impose the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect. It has also been mentioned that Shri R.C. Dave- the Chairman had informed the Board that the petitioner had levelled certain allegations against him in the High Court and special leave petition in the Supreme Court, even though they were dismissed and he would abide by the decision of the Board and not express his opinion. (19). As per record, the draft agenda for punishment for the meeting was prepared by the Deputy Secretary (Inquiry) on 22.6.1989 and Secretary had approved the same on 22.6.1989 itself and decision was taken on 23.6.1989 by the Board and compulsory retirement order was passed on 24.6.1989 i.e. the next date. (20). (19). As per record, the draft agenda for punishment for the meeting was prepared by the Deputy Secretary (Inquiry) on 22.6.1989 and Secretary had approved the same on 22.6.1989 itself and decision was taken on 23.6.1989 by the Board and compulsory retirement order was passed on 24.6.1989 i.e. the next date. (20). To the allegations that there was bias of the Enquiry Officer as well from the record there appears to be letter No. 355 dated 5.8.1986 from the Enquiry Officer to Anand Joshi, Presenting Officer wherein it is mentioned that he has discussed the matter with the Chairman, whereby the Chairman had wanted the Enquiry to be completed in 3/4 months time. The Enquiry Officer had complained that the list of documents and witnesses were being still awaited from the prosecution side and the Presenting Officer was given last opportunity to submit the list of documents and witnesses. This letter is placed on record as Annex.C-I by the Court. On 22.8.1986 the petitioner had asked the authorities to expedite the enquiry and also to supply documents for perusal as Annexure C-II. At page 123 the Secretary Keshri Singh had been even involving Anti corruption department of Police for association vide letter dated 30.10.1987 and the letter dated 7.11.1998 (page 124) and many other letters. The Enquiry Officer had written a D.O. letter on 21.5.1989 to the Chairman attaching therein the enquiry report along with one un- signed duplicate copy of the report. The enquiry officer had sent the enquiry report alongwith proceeding report to the Deputy Secretary (Enquiries) vide letter dated 5.6.1989 along with complete file and record. The order of compulsory retirement dated 24.6.1989 has been prepared and signed giving reasons by Rajendra Jain, the Secretary. (21). Above are the complete facts as borne out from the material of original record. After going through the complete facts of the case and after perusing the record and material as well, I am of the opinion that the order Annex-10 has not been passed in accordance with law. Admittedly, the appointing authority of he petitioner was Board of Directors. Covering letter of the charge- sheet was signed by the Secretary on behalf of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board so were the Statement allegations levelled against the petitioner signed by the Secretary. Admittedly, the appointing authority of he petitioner was Board of Directors. Covering letter of the charge- sheet was signed by the Secretary on behalf of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board so were the Statement allegations levelled against the petitioner signed by the Secretary. At every point, it is the Deputy Secretary or the Secretary who had initiated the proceedings and had sent to the Chairman for approval, coupled with the fact that even though the proposal of issuing the charge-sheet was sent to the Chairman but it was only approved by the Secretary on 4.3.1985 as per record. It is also apparent from the fact that one officer vide note No. 45 and 46 on 4.3.1985 had opined that the allegations against the petitioners were of serious nature and warrant the institution of the departmental enquiry for major penalty and if approved action could be initiated accordingly. He had mentioned in note No. 45 itself that the Chairman has been authorised by the Board for appropriate action. Note No. 45 and 46 as put to the Chairman reads as under:- ``45. This matter had come up for discussion with the Chairman some time back. The charges against Shri Kaushik are of a serious nature and warrant the institution of a D.E. for major penalty. If approved, action may be initiated accordingly. ``46. The Chairman has already been authorised by the Board for appropriate action. (22). The proposal was sent to the Chairman, Chairman has not signed it, but it is Secretary who signed it on 4.3.1985 and agreed to the proposal. Meaning thereby that even this proposal was not seen by the Chairman and only Secretary had approved it. (23). If according to the Note Nos. 45 and 46 the Chairman had stood authorised to issue the charge-sheet, where was the necessity of preparing the so called agenda for the meeting No. 334 dated 20.3.1984 as attached with the writ petition as Annex- R-2/2. (24). From the file as produced nothing has been brought on record that the complete inquiry report was ever placed before the Board along with record and whether the Board had ever discussed the same. (24). From the file as produced nothing has been brought on record that the complete inquiry report was ever placed before the Board along with record and whether the Board had ever discussed the same. No powers have been given to the Chairman or to the Secretary for initiating the charge-sheet to be given to the Superintending Engineer, nor any such resolution had been brought on record delegating such powers to the Chairman but still the Charge-sheet is issued on the note initiated by the subordinate staff approved by the Secretary. It was incumbent upon the authorities to have put the agenda of charge-sheeting the petitioner Superintending Engineer, before the Board along with the allegations to be levelled or should have been approved by the Board which had not been done and as such issuance of the charge-sheet itself was without jurisdiction and not in accordance with law and rules. (25). In view of above, there is hardly any necessity to discuss any other point in view of the fact that issuance of the charge- sheet is held to be bad in law and without jurisdiction, but in the present case from the facts, it is clear that on receipt of the enquiry report, it was the Deputy Secretary who initiates the action and sought permission for placing it before the Board. The Chairman approved it. No fault can be found upto this stage. Agenda of the Board is prepared by the Deputy Secretary on 22.6.1989 and is put up before the Board on 23.6.1989 along with 20 more agendas at 3.00 p.m. There is no discussion about the nature of charges, proof of the charges, finding of the enquiry officer on each of the charge or partly proved charge or not proved charges; reasons have not been given by the Board and almost in cryptic order the Board says that it agrees that with the inquiry report and that the charges are serious, warranting compulsorily retirement of the officer. This decision is taken on 23.6.1989 and on 24.6.1989 the Secretary vide Annex.10 passes the order of compulsory retirement. This decision is taken on 23.6.1989 and on 24.6.1989 the Secretary vide Annex.10 passes the order of compulsory retirement. The Secretary in its order mentions about the charge-sheet, about the allegation, issuance of charge-sheet under Rule 16 and the enquiry held under Rule 16, the appointment of Enquiry Officer, out come of the enquiry, brief of the charges, findings of the enquiry officer in regard to 12 charges and states that the Board had accepted the enquiry report and had recommended to pass the order impugned. He passes the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the Boards service, even though he mentions that the Board in its agenda had accepted the finding, but in my opinion, it is apparent that the Board in its meeting had not discussed at all any of the charge of nature of charges, what to say of giving reasons as was required under Rule 7(vii) of the rules. Therefore, the decision taken by the Board also violated the statutory provisions of law and Rules. (26). Coming to the point whether the enquiry was biased or not, the enquiry record shows that the enquiry officer had been taking active interest in not only guiding the Presenting Officer but also pressing the Presenting Officer to bring forward the evidence and the documents. If the prosecution fails or delays the proceedings, the enquiry officer can close the evidence of the prosecution and give its finding on, no evidence. He had been discussing the matter with the Chairman against whom the allegations of malafide have been alleged in regard to enquiry by writing D.O. letters and sending the enquiry report to him separately duly signed by him with the spare copy of the enquiry report prior to forwarding the enquiry report to the Department. The conduct of the enquiry officer creates doubt about his independence and it cannot be ruled out that the Chairman was taking active interest against the petitioner. The conduct of the enquiry officer creates doubt about his independence and it cannot be ruled out that the Chairman was taking active interest against the petitioner. Even the Chairman had stated in the meeting of the Board that he would not like to express any opinion because the petitioner had filed a writ petition against the Chairman in regard to promotional matter alleging certain malafide and allegations in the meeting of the Board, but it cannot be ruled out the such reaction of the Chairman before the other members of the Board who admittedly were not of equal in status can also influences the thinking of the other members and, therefore, petitioners allegations that the action had not been taken with an open mind even by the Board cannot be brushed aside lightly. (27). There is hardly any necessity to go into the other aspects of the matter whether the list the of decuments and witnesses were ever supplied to petitioner; or whether there was any necessity to issue show cause notice or giving of enquiry report in view of of fact that for the above said reasons the impugned order is being quashed. (28). In view of the above-said discussion, the charge-sheets and the subsequent action on the charge-sheet are quashed mainly on the grounds; (1) that the Charge-sheet and its allegations were never put before the Board before issuance of the Charge-sheet even though agenda was prepared; (2) the Chairman was not authorised to issue the charge-sheet as no authority has been brought on record so far the delegation of powers to take action against the Superintending Engineer is concerned; (3) even otherwise whole of the action has been taken by the Secretary of the Board i.e. initiation, approval, signing of the charge-sheet etc.; (4) that Annex-10 was passed by the Board without giving any reason and thus violative of the provisions of Rule 7(viii) which prescribes that the reasons are to be given on each of the charge and allegations; (5) that bias and malafide cannot be rules out in view of the record produced. (29). For the discussions and reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential reliefs as if the order had not been passed.