JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.9.2002. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated against the respondent Manak Chand Jain who was holding the office of Section Officer in the Administrative Office of the appellant University on the charge that in the application for casual leave, he mentioned wrong reason to the effect that this brother was seriously ill, while, the fact was that he was in detention being arrested in connection with a case for offence under Sections 468, 471 Indian Penal Code. Inquiry Officer found the charge proved. The Vice Chancellor accepted the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer and inflicted punishment of forfeiture of 50% of pay for the period from 2.7.1993 to 1.1.1994 and 25% from 2.1.1994 to 31.12.1996. The respondent was reinstated by the same order with effect from 31.12.1996. The said order was challenged by the respondent by way of petition under Article 226 fo the Constitution of India. 3. The learned Single Judge found that Inquiry Officer did not record the statement as deposed before him. He simply recorded the gist of the statement. No opportunity of cross examining the witnesses was given. The learned Single Judge also found that Disciplinary Authority in the matter of inflicting punishment travelled beyond the penalties provided in Part-IX of the University of Udaipur Employees (Service Conditions) Rules, 1976. The penalty of withholding of salary or part of the salary is neither permissible under the minor penalties nor in the major penalties in the Rules. In view of the finding aggrieved at, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 17.7.1997 (Annexure P/7). 4. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, it is contended by Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the University that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that provisions of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules empower the authority competent to forfeit the part of the salary during the period of suspension or absence from duty while passing the order of reinstatement. It is submitted that Rajasthan Service Rules are applicable to the employees of the appellant University. It is submitted that Rajasthan Service Rules are applicable to the employees of the appellant University. The learned Single Judge did not entertain this plea, on the ground that it did not find place in the reply filed by the University. Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the University is trying to make out entirely a new case and the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in not permitting such a plea. 5. We have considered the rival contentions. In our view the provisions of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules can be invoked only at the time of passing the order of reinstatement. The impugned order (Annexure P/7) clearly shows that the competent authority has forfeited the part of the salary as a penalty on the charge being proved against the respondent. Even otherwise, the enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer is defective, inasmuch as, the statements of the witnesses as deposed were not recorded. No opportunity of cross examination was given to the respondent. We are told that respondent has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider it to be fit case which calls for interference by this court in special appeal. 6. Consequently, this special appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******