Judgment 1. By instant writ petition, petitioner has assailed order Dated 11.07.1990 (Annexue-8) whereby he has been dismissed from service in regular disciplinary inquiry initiated under Rule 9 of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (“RTDC”) Employees (Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (“Conduct Rules”), so also order dated 09.07.1991 (Annexure-10) whereby appeal preferred by him has also been rejected. 2. Facts, in brief , are that petitioner was initially appointed as House Assistant in pay scale of 490-1680 on 14.06.1980. His services were governed by RTDC (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1980 (“Service Rules”) which were framed in exercise of powers vested in the Board of Directors under Article 67 of the Articles of Association of the Corporation. 3. One Rajkumar Sharma, who was holding post of Accountant, proceeded on leave from 14.05.1986 to 01.05.1986, and his charge was handed over to petitioner allegation against whom is that entry in cash book was made by him on 15.05.1986 in respect of cheque of Rs. 1235.10p., which was relating to salary payment of the staff but there was no cross entry, and the deficit balance was shown in the cash book for that amount and after an audit objection was raised, the amount was deposited on 19.05.1987, such act of petitioner was considered by respondents to be of temporary embezzlement. Accordingly he was served with charge sheet dated 20.04.1989 (Annexure-1) alongwith statement of allegations (Annexure 2 and 3) under Rule 9 of Conduct rules, imputing two charges. Petitioner submitted his written statement in defence, denying all the charges, to which the Corporation was not satisfied and, therefore, inquiry officer was appointed on 22.05.1989. After conducting the inquiry, petitioner was held by inquiry officer to be guilty of Charge No. 2 in his report dated 28.02.1990 (Annexure-5). After inquiry report was furnished to the Chairman cum Managing Director of Corporation, who was disciplinary authority of petitioner, after concurring with finding of guilt recorded by inquiry officer, issued notice dated 22.05.1990 (Annexure-6) to show cause against proposed punishment to petitioner and being not satisfied with his explanation, inflicted penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-8), against which petitioner preferred appeal under Rule 17 of Conduct Rules, and that too was rejected vide order dated 09.07.1991 (Annexure-10). Hence, this petition. 4. Hence, this petition. 4. Shri K.C. Sharma, Counsel for petitioner urged that petitioner being member of Class III post, was not acquainted with procedure adopted in the inquiry under Conduct Rules, and he was not provided with any defence assistant in the absence of which, he failed to cross-examine witnesses effectively, which has caused great prejudice to him and such action of respondents was violative of Rules 9(5) and (6) of Conduct Rules. 5. Shri Sharma further urged that finding of guilt recorded by inquiry officer in respect of Charge No. 2 for temporary embezzlement, are contrary to material on record and merely because petitioner failed to make entry despite the fact that cheque relating to salary payment of the staff was duly entered into cash book and according to him at the best, it was a mere irregularity, which could not be considered to be of temporary embezzlement and in this view of the matter, there was no legal evidence on record which substantiates the charge for holding him guilty. 6. Shri Sharma also urged that appeal preferred by petitioner was rejected by appellate authority arbitrarily by non speaking order, which was in violation of Rule 20 of Conduct Rules. In this regard, Shri Sharma cited decision of this court, in Prabhulal Agrawal vs. State of Raj., 1991 (2) RLR 630. Apart from it, Chairman cum Managing Director who took decision as disciplinary authority while passing order of dismissal on 11.07.1990 (Annexure-8), against which he preferred appeal, has also presided over as Chairman of the Board, which considered his appeal; as such his very participation while considering appeal preferred by petitioner has vitiated the decision in appeal and appellate decision cannot be said to be independent and was in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Last submission made by petitioners Counsel is that even if Charge No. 2 which stands proved after holding inquiry, is taken at its face value, then also punishment of dismissal from service inflicted against petitioner is shockingly disproportionate and requires interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition and opposed on merits, by filing additional affidavit. 8. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition and opposed on merits, by filing additional affidavit. preliminary objection has been raised that petitioner has got an alternate remedy by raising an industrial dispute under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Tribunal, where employer has right to lead evidence if inquiry is found to be unfair and remedy is available before the Tribunal to examine the charge imputed against workman delinquent and such disputed questions of facts raised by petitioner cannot ordinarily be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India when statutory remedy is available under Industrial Disputes Act to examine such disputed facts. In support of contentions, respondents have placed reliance upon decisions in (1) M/s Pankaj Food Ind. Bhilwara vs. DLSC Bhilwara, 2001 (1) RLR 643 , (2) U.P. State Bridge Corpn vs. UP Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh, 2004 (4) SCC 268 . 9. Apart from preliminary objection, respondents also submitted that by not making proper entry in cash book, a sum of Rs. 1235.10P., was retained and deposited only book when audit objection was raised and admittedly it was related to the period when he was working as Accountant on 15.05.1986 and also it will be of no significance even if it was a mere irregularity since ultimate fact remained that money was retained and deposited on 19.05.1987 and accordingly it is a clear case of temporary embezzlement and in such circumstances, no error has been committed by holding petitioner guilty of Charge No. 2. It has further been contended by respondents that there is provision for providing defence assistant to the delinquent under Rule 9(5) of Conduct Rules but petitioner never demanded for any such defence assistant and he himself appeared in course of inquiry proceedings and effectively cross examined the witnesses, therefore, in such circumstances, when there was no request by petitioner delinquent and he effectively cross examined witnesses, there was neither violation of Rules 9(5) nor any prejudice has been caused to him on account of absence of defence assistance to him. 10. The respondents further submitted that order passed in appeal being order of affirmation, no detailed reasons are required to be communicated to petitioner and decision of appellate authority is in consonance with Rule 20 of Conduct rules. 10. The respondents further submitted that order passed in appeal being order of affirmation, no detailed reasons are required to be communicated to petitioner and decision of appellate authority is in consonance with Rule 20 of Conduct rules. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, Counsel for respondents urged that looking to nature of charge proved against petitioner which is of temporary embezzlement, no leniency is called for in such matters and disciplinary authority after affording ample opportunity, considered it appropriate to dismiss petitioner from service, and no error has been committed by authority in doing so. In this regard, respondents relied upon decision in Div. Controller, K.S.R.T.C. vs. A.T. Mana, 2005 (3) SCC 254 . 11. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and pondered over material on record. 12. So far as objection raised by respondents with regard to availability of alternative remedy before Industrial Tribunal, is concerned, in my opinion, such an objection is bereft of merit especially when writ petition stood admitted by this Court vide order dated 07.07.1992, inasmuch as at least in present petition, petitioner has not raised disputed questions of facts nor any protection has been claimed by him which can be adjudicated only upon invoking jurisdiction under Industrial Disputes Act by the Tribunal by way of an industrial dispute. That apart, there is no such disputed questions of fact involved in present petition which require any adjudication on merits of the charge proved against petitioner. In my opinion, after pendency of writ petition for last more than 13 years, I am not prone to accept preliminary objection raised by respondents and the same is accordingly rejected. 13. However, without entering into questions raised at the bar about (1) prejudice caused to petitioner in the absence of providing defence assistant in the course of cross-examination of witnesses, (2) validity of findings of guilt recorded either by inquiry officer or affirmed by disciplinary authority, so also (3) challenge to the penalty of dismissal from service inflicted upon him or quantum on the ground of dis-proportionality, which will be for the appellate authority to examine, I restrict myself to dwell upon challenge to the appellate order on which fate of this petition also hinges. 14. 14. Now I advert to the submission made by Counsel for petitioner that the order passed in appeal is violative of Rule 20 of Conduct Rules because reasons have not been assigned and, therefore, it is non speaking order and that apart, Chairman cum Managing Director, who exercised powers of disciplinary authority for holding petitioner guilty of Charge No. 2 and inflicted penalty upon him for dismissal from service, has also participated in and presided over the Board which decided appeal preferred by petitioner against the order passed by the Chairman acting as disciplinary authority. Such a contention requires acceptance for the reasons that from a bare look at Rule 20 of Conduct Rules, which reads as under:- “20. Duties of Appellate Authorities:- The appellate authority shall consider:- .(i) Whether the facts on which the order was based have been established; .(ii) Whether the facts established afford sufficient grounds for taking action; and (iii) Whether the penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate, or excessive and thereafter pass an order either .(a) setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty; or .(b) remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” this clearly emerges that appellate authority is required to consider independently as to whether inquiry has been held in accordance with rules and principles of natural justice and if there is any violation of rules of procedure or principle of natural justice or any prejudice has been caused to the delinquent, appellate authority shall apply its mind independently by following the rules of procedure as provided under Rule 20 of Conduct Rules while deciding appeal preferred by delinquent against infliction of penalty. That apart, it has also to be examined as to whether penalty inflicted is adequate or inadequate or excessive and if satisfied, may reconsider about penalty to be inflicted upon delinquent. 15. Present Rule 20 of Conduct rules is almost pari materia to Rule 30 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Recording of reasons by appellate authority has been considered to be mandatory and an obligation has been coasted upon it to pass speaking order. Rule 30(2) of CCA Rules has been examined by this Court in Prabhulal Agrawal vs. State, 1991 (2) WLC (Raj.) 469 (Supra). 16. Recording of reasons by appellate authority has been considered to be mandatory and an obligation has been coasted upon it to pass speaking order. Rule 30(2) of CCA Rules has been examined by this Court in Prabhulal Agrawal vs. State, 1991 (2) WLC (Raj.) 469 (Supra). 16. A bare perusal of order dated 09.07.1991 (Annexure-10) passed by appellate authority makes it precise that it does not disclose application of mind on the part of appellate authority and in my opinion it is not in conformity with Rule 20 of Conduct Rules. The appellate order completely fails to satisfy basic requirement of passing order by appellate authority in consonance with Rule 20 and thus in my view the appellate authority has failed to examine findings recorded by disciplinary authority while affirming finding of guilt recorded by inquiry officer and taking decision of inflicting penalty of dismissal from service upon petitioner. 17. One of principles of natural justice is that no person shall be a Judge of his own cause or the adjudicating authority must be impartial and must act without any kind of bias; and this rule is based on the principle that justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done. This could be possible only when a Judge or an adjudicating authority decides the matter impartially and without carrying any kind of bias. 18. In present case, Chairman cum Managing Director of respondent Corporation, who has passed order as disciplinary authority inflicting penalty of dismissal from service vide order 08/0790 (Annexure-8), has also participated in the Boards meeting which took decision as appellate authority while examining appeal preferred by delinquent petitioner against order of penalty. 19. The Apex Court has examined an identical controversy in Amarnath Choudhary vs. Braithwaite & Co., 2002 (2) SCC 290 , and held that if the officer acted as a disciplinary authority so also an appellate authority by participation in the deliberations of the meeting of the Board while deciding the appeal, such a dual function is not permissible on account of established rule against bias. The Apex Court observed thus:- “In a situation where such a dual function is discharged by one and the same authority, unless permitted by an act of legislation or statutory provision, the same would be contrary to rule against bias. The Apex Court observed thus:- “In a situation where such a dual function is discharged by one and the same authority, unless permitted by an act of legislation or statutory provision, the same would be contrary to rule against bias. Where an authority earlier had taken a decision, he is disqualified to sit in appeal against his own decision, as he already prejudged the matter otherwise such an appeal would be termed an appeal from Caesar to Caesar and fining of an appeal, would be an exercise in futility.” 20. In this view of the matter, decision of appellate authority is in violation of Rule 20 of Conduct Rules, and so also participation of the Chairman cum Managing Director of Corporation as Member in the deliberations of the meeting of the Board when the Board heard and decided the appeal preferred by petitioner, is in violation of principles of natural justice. 21. Accordingly appellate order deserves to be set aside and the matter has to be reconsidered by appellate authority afresh. But at this stage, I may hasten to add that while examining merits of charge No. 2 imputed and proved against petitioner in view of findings of guilt recorded by disciplinary authority, it has to be carefully noticed that imputation of charge of temporary embezzlement also requires reconsideration on the basis of material on record, on which I find that amount referred to is of a cheque of Rs. 1,235.10p., which in fact, was relating to payment of salary to the staff , and of which entry was made by petitioner in cash book, which was duly entered into at p. 139 (Exhibit-P-2) and on 15.05.1986 balance of Rs. 19,499. 44p. has also been entered in cash book, out of which in remittance column, Rs. 11,650/-as cash and Rs. 1,235.10p. as cheque have also been written and entered. The audit has also been written and entered. The audit has also in its report referred that amount of cheque Rs. 1,235.10p. has not been entered into credit balance of 16.05.1986 and, therefore, there was a short of balance shown on 16.05.1986 in cash book. Reference has been made by inquiry officer in his report in Para 14 and he has further recorded a finding that it was an error committed in not making proper entry in cash book. 1,235.10p. has not been entered into credit balance of 16.05.1986 and, therefore, there was a short of balance shown on 16.05.1986 in cash book. Reference has been made by inquiry officer in his report in Para 14 and he has further recorded a finding that it was an error committed in not making proper entry in cash book. In such circumstances, whether it is a case of temporary embezzlement of cheque amount Rs. 1,235.10p. or not, is also required to be reconsidered in the light of material on record. But without examining sustainability of findings of guilt and expressing any opinion on merits, I deem it proper to direct appellate authority to examine entire matter afresh after taking into consideration inquiry report, so also order of disciplinary authority in the light of aforesaid observations and in consonance with Rule 20 of Conduct Rules, besides the fact of past service rendered by petitioner which is of almost more than 10 years as has been informed to this Court, while taking decision on appeal preferred by him. 22. Consequently, this writ petition is partly allowed. Order dated 09.07.1991 (Annexure-10) passed by appellate authority is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh in the light of aforesaid observations and after affording personal hearing to the petitioner who will be free to submit within one month any additional facts and arguments in support of his case in appeal preferred by him, if so advised. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law within three months thereafter and copy of the decision/order be served upon the petitioner. No order as to costs.