Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this writ petition a challenge is given by the petitioner to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”) and to the order dated 25.04.1998 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing a penalty of removal upon him and to the order dated 01.01.1999 passed by the appellate authority affirming the order dated 25.04.1998. 2. The facts in brief which are necessary for adjudication of present writ petition are that a memorandum dated 11.04.1997 under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon the petitioner alongwith a statement of allegation. The petitioner was charged for remaining unauthorized and willful absent. The petitioner in response to the memorandum dated 11.04.1997 submitted an explanation dated NIL stating therein that he never intended to remain unauthorized or wilful absent from duty. The petitioner while denying the allegation levelled stated in explanation that by an order dated 31.05.1996 passed by the Director, Department of Information and Public Relation, one Shri Jagdish Purohit was transferred from Jodhpur to Churu as Lower Division Clerk on abolition on the post of Lower Division Clerk at Suchana Kendra, Jodhpur. The order passed by the Director was amended even without giving information to him by Dy. Director (Administration) and in place of aforesaid Shri Jagdish Purohit the petitioner was transferred from Jodhpur to Churu by order dated 13.06.1996. The petitioner inspite of it performed the order dated 13.06.1996 and joined as Lower Division Clerk at Churu. The petitioner further stated that he came to Jodhpur to serve his old ailing mother and for the purpose he sought leave from competent authority and submitted number of applications in this regard. 3. The disciplinary authority by an order dated 06.05.1997 appointed Shri Kushal Tharwani, Assistant Director of the Department as inquiry officer to inquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner after appointment of the inquiry officer submitted a detailed representation dated 110.1997 (Annexure-7) to the Director, Information and Public Relation, Directorate, Jaipur pointing out the fact that Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3) without having any authority amended the order dated 31.05.1996 by order dated 13.06.1996 and transferred him in place of aforesaid Shri Jagdish Purohit. The petitioner after appointment of the inquiry officer submitted a detailed representation dated 110.1997 (Annexure-7) to the Director, Information and Public Relation, Directorate, Jaipur pointing out the fact that Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3) without having any authority amended the order dated 31.05.1996 by order dated 13.06.1996 and transferred him in place of aforesaid Shri Jagdish Purohit. The petitioner in aforesaid representation in quite unambiguous terms stated that Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3) was not having any authority to amend the order dated 31.05.1996 passed by the Director and was also not an authority competent to transfer a Lower Division Clerk. 4. After receipt of representation dated 110.1997 the respondents by an order dated 20.10.1997 appointed aforesaid Shri Ramswaroop Joshi, the then Joint Director as inquiry officer to inquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner by memorandum dated 11.04.1997 in place of Shri Kushal Tharwani who was appointed as inquiry officer by order dated 06.05.1997. The petitioner on appointment of Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3) as inquiry officer submitted an application to the disciplinary authority to change the inquiry officer as the petitioner was having certain doubts about impartiality of aforesaid Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondents No. 3). No action was taken by the respondents upon the application submitted by the petitioner for change of inquiry officer. 5. The petitioner was served with a notice to show cause dated 19.02.1998 (Annexure-12) to submit an explanation/personal hearing with regard to proposed punishment that was of removal from services. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation and objection with regard to proposed punishment. The petitioner in quite unambiguous terms stated that no disciplinary proceeding as required under the Rules was conducted. The petitioner also alleged bias against inquiry officer and also gave reference to the notice dated 011.1997 whereby he made a request for change of inquiry officer. 6. After affording an opportunity of personal hearing the disciplinary authority by order dated 25.04.1998 imposed a punishment of removal upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 and the same came to be rejected by the appellate authority by an order dated 01.01.1999. Hence, present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner. .7. Being aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 and the same came to be rejected by the appellate authority by an order dated 01.01.1999. Hence, present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner. .7. This Court by order dated 06.05.2005 directed the respondents to produce entire record of the disciplinary proceeding in question before the Court on 16.05.2005. Accordingly the respondents produced complete record before the Court today. .8. I have perused and scanned the entire record. .9. In fact the record produced by the respondents is compilation of certain documents. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be a record of the disciplinary proceeding. I specifically asked learned Additional Government Advocate Shri Shyam Ladrecha about the record of disciplinary proceeding, however, in turn he stated that no record other than the record produced is available with the respondents and the record produced is the record of the disciplinary proceeding. After perusal and scanning the record the same was returned to the Counsel for the respondents, however, a photocopy of the inquiry report has been taken on record of the case. From perusal and scanning of record I found that no order sheets of the disciplinary proceeding were drawn by the inquiring authority. In fact the inquiring authority called the petitioner on 10.12.1997 and on that day itself the inquiring authority completed the entire inquiry and thereafter he submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority on 06.01.1998. .10. In view of factual foundation above I heard the Counsel for the parties. 11. The first contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that no disciplinary proceeding as contemplated under the Rules of 1958 was conducted by the inquiry officer. It is alleged by the Counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry officer conducted the inquiry proceeding in quite vague manner and which could not be treated as disciplinary proceeding as required under the Rules of 1958. 12. I have perused the inquiry report from the record of the respondents. It is alleged by the Counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry officer conducted the inquiry proceeding in quite vague manner and which could not be treated as disciplinary proceeding as required under the Rules of 1958. 12. I have perused the inquiry report from the record of the respondents. The inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3) to the disciplinary authority reads as under:- Þizdk'k HkS;k dfu"B fyfid] lwpuk ,oa tulEidZ dk;kZy; pw: ds fo:) tkap fjiksVZ e izdkk HkS;k] dfu"B fyfid] lwpuk ,oa tulEidZ dk;kZok ¼Jh vksy;] pw: ds fo:) jktLFkku flfoy lsoxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;e] 1958 ds fu;e & 16 ds vUrxZr tkap ds funsZk fn, x, FksA Jh vkesizek.k&Ik= vkfn ysdk'k HkS;k] dfu"B fyfid dks vius nLrkost ,oa izdj fnukad 10-12-1997 dks funskky; eascqyk;k x;kA Jh HkS;k 10-12-1997 dks mifLFkr gq,A Jh HkS;k us funskky; }kjk fn, x, Kkiu la[;k 6781&83 fnukad 11-04-1997 rFkk mlds lkFk iszf"kr vkjksi fooj.k Ik= izkIr gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA Jh HkS;k dk lwpuk ,oa tulEidZ dk;kZy;] tks/kiqj ls in lekIr gks tkus ds dkj.k 21-05-1996 dks pw: LFkkukUrj.k fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa vknskksa dh vuqikyuk esa Jh HkS;k us 29-06-1996 dks pw: esa dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k Jh HkS;k 05-08-1996 dh jk=h dks pw: ls fcuk eq[;ky; NksM+us dh vuqefr izkIr fd, tks/kiqj pys x;s ,oa 06-08-1996 ls dk;kZy; ls yxkrkj vuqifLFkr py jgs gaSrFkk Jh HkS;k us 06-08- 1996 ls 20 -08-1996 ,oa nu lwpuk ,oa tulEidZ dk;kZ 27-09-1996 ls 31-12-1996 rd dh vodkk o`f) dk vkosy;] pw: dks fHktok;k gS blds Ikpkr~ 31-12-1996 ls vkt rd ds fy, Jh HkS;k us fdlh Hkh izdkj dk vodk'k vkosnu Hkh ugha fHktok;k gSA Jh HkS;k dks fo/kkulHkk mipquko ljnkjkgj ds nkSjku M;~Vh ij 'kh?kz mifLFkr gkswus ds funsZk fn, x, ijUrq blds ckotwn Hkh Jh HkS;k dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr ugha gq, vkSj Jh HkS;k us 15-09-1996 dks ,d vkosnu Ik= ;g tkurs gq, Hkh fHktok;k fd vfuok;Z lsfRr 25 o"kZ dh lsok fuo`ok vof /k ;k 50 o"kZ dh vk;q gksus ij ljdkj ok fuo`ok fuo`}kjk nh tkrh gSA vr% blds rgr mudh lsfRr ugha gks ldrh] fQj Hkh mUgksaus vfuok;Z lsfRr gsrq vkosnu fd;kA Jh HkS;k ds mDr vkosnu ij tc muls LoSfPNd lsok fuofRr ds fy, vkosnu djus dks dgk x;k rks mUgksaus iuq% vodkk o`f) ds fy, 27-09-1996 ls 31-12-1996 rd ds vodk'k o`f) dk vkosnu izLrqr dj fn;kA dkj ls Jh HkS;k ;u dsy;] mijksDr izsu izdkjs.k ncko cukrs gq, viuk LFkkukUrj.k lwpuk ,oa tulEidZ dk;kZpw: ls tks/kiqj djkuk pkgrs gS vkSj blh dks vk/kkj cukdj os tulEidZ dk;kZy;] pw: ls yxHkx Ms< o"kZ ls vuqifLFkr py jgs gSA blds fy, mUgkusas 1 tuojh] 1997 ls fnlEcj] 1997 rd ds fy, fdlh Hkh izdkj dk vkosnu Hkh izLrqy; ls LoSPNk ls vuqr ugha fd;k gSA bl izdkj dk;kZifLFkr jgus ds ;s nks"kh ik;s tkrs gSA vr% buds fo:) fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSSaAß ,l-Mh ¼jkeLo:Ik tkskh½ tkap vf/kdkjh ,oa la;qDr funskd ¼lekpkj½ lwpuk ,oa tulEidZ funskky;] jkt-] t;iqjAß 13. A reading of inquiry report substantiate the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent form the inquiry report that no inquiry as required under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was conducted by inquiry officer. It appears that the inquiry officer at the first called the petitioner on 10.12.1997 wherein he accepted about receipt of charge-sheet. The inquiry officer thereafter narrated the facts at his own and reached at the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty for remaining absent willfully. It does not reveal from perusal of inquiry report as to what was the basis and foundation for facts averred in the inquiry report and to record a finding of guilt. No prosecution witness was examined and no other evidence at all was produced by the department. I failed to understand as to wherefrom the inquiry officer who is required to be an independent and impartial person gathered the facts averred in his report. A bare reading of the inquiry report speaks in volume about non compliance of mandatory provisions of the Rules of 1958 which clearly establishes the prejudice caused to the petitioner in defending himself . In fact the present one is not only a case of no evidence but is of no inquiry. The disciplinary authority without looking into the record of inquiry merely on basis of report given by inquiry officer imposed severe punishment of removal. 14. The next contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the copy of inquiry report was not supplied to him by the respondents alongwith notice Annexure-12 dated 19.02.1998 as a consequence he failed to defend himself adequately and the same has caused a serious prejudice to him. 15. It is a position admitted that no copy of inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner alongwith notice Annexure-12 dated 19.02.1998 and for this reason also violation of principles of natural justice is apparent and the order passed by disciplinary authority is unsustainable. 16. The Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that entire inquiry was conducted only with view to penalize the petitioner and for that purpose Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3) was appointed as inquiry officer who was keeping bias with the petitioner. The allegation of bias against Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3) is substantiated by the petitioner by chain of circumstances. 17. The allegation of bias against Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3) is substantiated by the petitioner by chain of circumstances. 17. It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3) at the first instance made an amendment in the order dated 31.05.1996 by transferring the petitioner from Jodhpur to Churu under order dated 13.06.1996. He has further stated that at the first instance Shri Kushal Tharwani was appointed as inquiry officer but for no reason he was changed by an order dated 20.10.1997 after receiving the representation dated 110.1997 submitted by the petitioner wherein he pointed out the fact about unauthorized amendment made by Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3) in the order dated 31.05.1996. He has also emphasized the manner in which the inquiry was conducted which resulted into removal of the petitioner. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3). The allegation levelled against Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3), therefore, are remained unrebutted. It is apparent from perusal of entire record of the proceeding that Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3), the inquiry officer, acted in most casual manner and conducted the inquiry in most hasty way. An inquiry officer holds a very responsible duty which is required to be discharged by him fairly, objectively and with all impartiality. A delinquent employee should have complete faith in him. In the present case after appointment of Shri Ramswaroop Joshi (respondent No. 3) as an inquiry officer an application was submitted by the petitioner for change of inquiry officer but no response was given to the same. Shri Ramswaroop Joshi too was aware of this fact as the application to change the inquiry officer is available on record of the inquiry. The petitioner in the representations for the change of inquiry officer also levelled allegation of castism against Shri Ramswaroop Joshi. All these allegations remained unrebutted. In totality of facts the allegation of bias against inquiry officer appears to be true. 18. I also found that the order of appellate authority is not in accordance with Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. The appellate authority has not considered the appeal as required to be considered under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. The same is also, therefore, not sustainable in eye of law. 19. 18. I also found that the order of appellate authority is not in accordance with Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. The appellate authority has not considered the appeal as required to be considered under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. The same is also, therefore, not sustainable in eye of law. 19. In view of whatever discussed above, I am having no hesitation in holding that entire disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was conducted in violation of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and, therefore, the out come of the disciplinary proceeding i.e., the order passed by the disciplinary authority is non-est in eye of law. The order of appellate authority also deserves to be quashed as it has lost the foundation in view of holding the inquiry and the order of disciplinary authority non-est. 20. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner in pursuance of memeorandum dated 11.04.1997 and the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 25.04.1998 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 01.01.1999 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner fortwith with all consequential benefits. 21. No order as to costs.