Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-This writ petition has been filed against order dated 21.07.1987 (Exhibit 10), whereby petitioner has been punished with penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension, which has been upheld by appellate authority vide order dated 03.01.1989 (Exhibit 12), and by reviewing authority vide order dated 05.09.1990 (Exhibit 14). 2. Facts, in brief , are that petitioner was initially appointed as Patwari in the year 1960. By invoking Rule 244(2) of Rajasthan Service Rules, he was retired compulsorily in public interest vide order dated 30.11.1985, and against which, appeal preferred by him before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, was allowed on 27.03.1986, in pursuant thereof , he was reinstated in service with consequential benefits vide order dated 23.04.1987 (Exhibit 9), and thereby for intervening period from December, 1985 to April, 1987, he remained out of employment. 3. While the decision was taken with respect to compulsory retirement, petitioner was facing departmental inquiry and a charge sheet dated 011.1982 under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ("CCA Rules") for incidents of the period from December, 1972 to May, 1977 when he was working as Patwari was pending against him. After service of charge-sheet (Exhibit 1) alongwith statement of allegations, petitioner submitted explanation denying charges vide reply dated 111.1982 (Exhibit 2), whereafter Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 13.01.1983 (Exhibit 3). 4. During the course of inquiry, Presenting Officer failed to produce complete record relating to inquiry and hence Inquiry Officer directed him to collect complete record and only thereafter petitioner was to be informed by the department, as is evident from the order sheet dated 012.1983, and thereafter inquiry was fixed on numerous occasions but Presenting Officer failed to produce relevant inquiry record to be examined before Inquiry Officer and however, Inquiry Officer finally sent the record of inquiry proceedings back to the Collector Sawai Madhopur as is evident from order sheet dated 29.04.1985 (Exhibit 5). The proceeding recorded by Inquiry Officer on 012.1983 and so also on 29.04.1985 which are relevant for present purpose are reproduced below:- 06-12-1983 i=koyh isk gqbZA nks"kh deZpkjh Jh ek[kuyky Vh-vkj-,-o-vks-ds-rglhy djksyh crkSj xtV mifLFkr rglhynkj djkSyh Hkh mifLFkr gSA c;ku Vh vkj , fjdkMZ dh vuqifLFkfr esa v/kwjk jgkA isjksdkj ljdkj rglhynkj djkSyh dks fgnk;r dh tcfd og vkjksi ls lcfa/kr lEiw.kZ fjdkMZ rykk djokdj isk djsaxsA rRipkr gh xokgku ds c;ku dyecan fd;s tkossaA fjdkMZ dh lwpuk izkIr gksus ij iVokjh ek[kuyky ds foHkkx iSjoh lwpuk nh tkosaA i=koyh o rF;okj fjiksVZ rglhy ckcr fnukad 02-01-1984 dks isk gksA 29-04-1985 i=koyh isk gqbZA rglhynkj djkSyh dh vksj ls Jh xkjs/kuyky vkfil dkuwuxksa mifLFkr gSA tkap ls lcfa/kr fjdkMZ izLrqr ugha fd;kA rglhynkj djkSyh dk Mh-bZ- ls lcafa/kr fjdkMZ izLrqr djus gsrq dbZ ckj Mh-vks- o i= tkjh fd;s tk pqds gS] fdUrq os fjdkMZ izLrqr djus esa vleFkZ jgs gSA tkap dkQh iqjkuh gks pqdh gS vkSj rglhynkj djkSyh dh vksj ls fjdkMZ izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA vr% i=koyh Jheku ftyk/khk egksn; lokbZek/kksiqj dks izsf "kr dh tkosaA foLr`r fooj.k layXu gSA 5. According to the petitioner, he was never informed either by Inquiry Officer or by the department with respect to further proceedings after 29.04.1985. This fact has been specifically pleaded by the petitioner in paras 10 & 13 of writ petition. After the petitioner joined service pursuant to order dated 23.04.1987 (Exhibit 9) passed in compliance of Tribunals Judgment dated 27.03.1986, he was served with order dated 21.07.1987 (Exhibit 10) passed on the basis of report of Inquiry Officer whereby petitioner was held to be guilty of charges 1,2 & 6 imputed and found proved against him, and thereby disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of compulsory retirement, against which he preferred appeal under Rule 23 of CCA Rules, which was rejected by order dated 03.01.1989 (Exhibit 12), and review petition preferred by him under Rule 34 of CCA Rules against appellate order, was also rejected vide order dated 05.09.1990 (Exhibit 14). Hence, this writ petition. 6. Hence, this writ petition. 6. Shri R.C. Joshi, Counsel for petitioner urged that the petitioner attended inquiry on all the occasions, but since Presenting Officer failed to produce complete record pertaining to the charges before Inquiry Officer, despite opportunity afforded to him, and as a consequence whereof , record of inquiry proceedings was sent back by Inquiry Officer to the Collector, Sawai Madhopur vide order dated 29.04.1985 (Exhibit 5-A); and as he was compulsorily retired under Rule 244(2) of RSR vide order dated 30.11.1985 and was reinstated in service vide order dated 23.04.1987 (Exhibit 9) passed in compliance of Tribunals order dated 27.03.1986, therefore, virtually he was out of employment for the period from December, 1985 till 23.04.1987, during which as per proceedings (Exhibit 5A), the inquiry, itself , was undertaken ex-parte in his absence, and neither he was informed nor any intimation whereof was ever given to him for having undertaken proceeding ex-parte in the inquiry; in this view of the matter, without following procedure envisaged under Order 16 of CCA Rules, so also without providing him an opportunity of hearing by Inquiry Officer and so also by disciplinary authority while holding him guilty of charges 1, 2 & 6 imputed against him, inflicted penalty to compulsory retirement vide order dated 21/07/1987 (Exhibit 10) just after he joined service on reinstatement vide order dated 23.04.1987 passed pursuant to Judgment dated 27.03.1986 of the Tribunal vitiates the impugned decision. 7. Shri Joshi further submitted that order of penalty inflicted upon petitioner is in clear violation of principles of natural justice since no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him by Inquiry Officer after 29.04.1985, and despite such a specific plea as referred to in paras 10 & 13 of writ petition, and having been raised in appeal and review petition against order of penalty, both appellate and review authorities failed to consider his grievance and rejected appeal so also review petition vide orders dated 03.01.1989 (Exhibit 12) and dated 05.09.1990 (Exhibit 14). 8. 8. Shri Joshi also urged that a reference has been made in order of penalty that petitioner was called upon for personal hearing on 18.03.1987 but his contention is that this fact has wrongly been mentioned therein, rather it is not supported by any document on record, because in fact, no opportunity to personal hearing was ever afforded to him, inasmuch as he has specifically alleged it in his memo of appeal and review petition so also in present writ petition, and this fact remained throughout uncontroverted on the part of respondents. Therefore, very action of respondents by inflicting penalty upon petitioner stands vitiated in view of ex-parte proceedings initiated against him totally in disregard of rules of procedure and natural justice. 9. No reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondents. However, respondents have filed one additional affidavit on 02.03.2005 but averments made by petitioner in his writ petition are not at all controverted and alongwith affidavit, some documents have been placed on record except the inquiry report, none is of any assistance for examining the dispute raised by respondents in the present writ petition. 10. This fact remained uncontroverted on record, as to whether after order (Exhibit 5-A) was passed by Inquiry Officer on 29.04.1985, petitioner was ever served with date of inquiry initiated against him and whether he was at all aware of inquiry proceedings pending against him or not; and before penalty was inflicted upon him vide order dated 21.07.1987 (Exhibit 10), what procedure was adopted Inquiry Officer by giving him any intimation of inquiry initiating proceeding ex-parte against him, particularly, in present facts situation, when he was compulsorily retired under Rule 244(2), RSR and was reinstated in service vide order dated 23.04.1987 after complying with Tribunals Judgment dated 27.03.1986, inasmuch as during intervening period from December, 1985 to 23.04.1987, he was no more in employment of respondents. 11. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused material on record. 12. 11. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused material on record. 12. From a perusal of scheme of Rule 16 of CCA Rules, under which inquiry has been initiated against petitioner, for imposition of major penalty, and which postulates complete procedure and in fact, is a complete Code providing procedure for affording opportunity of hearing to the delinquent at all stages so as to enable him to furnish his explanation to the charge-sheet under inquiry; in other words he is required to submit a written statement, wherein if he denies charges imputed against him, and desires to be heard in person, the disciplinary authority may either himself inquire into charges, or may consider to appoint an Inquiry Officer, who in case of non-submission of written statement, has to call upon delinquent to submit his written statement offering his explanation under Rule 16(3) and in this manner after the disciplinary authority nominates and appoints Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry Officer has to proceed further under Rule 16(4) and probe into the charges against delinquent by proceeding as per procedure envisaged under Rules 16(5), 16(6) and 16(7) of CCA Rules. Under Rule 16(5), Inquiry Officer proceeded further to afford opportunity of hearing and to call upon Presenting Officer to submit list of witnesses and documents, on which he places reliance and in same manner opportunity is afforded to delinquent after the matter is presented by Presiding Officer on behalf of department and so also by delinquent under Rule 16(6) (a) and 16(6) (b) of CCA Rules. Inquiry Officer after taking into consideration proceedings of inquiry as well as material adduced in evidence before him, records his conclusion and findings on such charges imputed against delinquent under Order 16(7) and thereafter, inquiry officer sends record of Inquiry under Rule 16(8), which includes the charges framed against delinquent, his written statement in defence, oral evidence adduced and documents considered during course of inquiry and a report setting out findings on each charge and reasons thereof . After receipt of record of inquiry, disciplinary authority takes its decision under Rule 16(9) of CCA Rules. Thus, this procedure has been laid down only to provide adequate and reasonable opportunity to the delinquent and who may also get an equal opportunity to defend himself in course of inquiry. 13. After receipt of record of inquiry, disciplinary authority takes its decision under Rule 16(9) of CCA Rules. Thus, this procedure has been laid down only to provide adequate and reasonable opportunity to the delinquent and who may also get an equal opportunity to defend himself in course of inquiry. 13. The basic fundamental object behind is that no one should not be condemned unheard, and denial of such an opportunity of being heard defeats the fundamental rights of delinquent enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution of India so also his right of opportunity of hearing contemplated under Scheme of CCA Rules and its denial vitiates decision. 14. In the present case, petitioner has come out with a specific case not only in his appeal and review petition but also in paras 10 & 13 of this writ petition that after 29.04.1985 when the record was sent back to the Collector vide order (Exhibit 5-A) by Inquiry Officer, no intimation of the date fixed was ever intimated by Inquiry Officer to him, during intervening period when he was out of employment from December, 1985 to 23.04.1987 and he joined service on reinstatement as per order dated 23.04.1987 (Exhibit 9) issued in compliance of Tribunals Judgment dated 27.03.1986, but none of authorities either appellate or reviewing have considered the same and virtually uncontroverted fact remained is that inquiry proceeded ex-parte against him depriving the delinquent of his right of hearing so also violating principles of natural justice. 15. It was expected from respondents State to submit reply to writ petition but despite opportunity being afforded, no reply has ever been filed and even when the matter came up before this Court after almost 10 years of its presentation, it was listed on numerous occasions and in last, only additional affidavit was filed on 02.03.2005. Yet, this fact totally remained uncontroverted as to whether any information or intimation was ever sent to the delinquent ( petitioner) after the record of inquiry was sent by Inquiry Officer, himself , vide order dated 29.04.1985 (Exhibit 5-A) to Collector, Swai Madhopur, with the direction to submit complete record pertaining to the charges imputed against delinquent, or not, and what procedure was adopted after receipt of record back from the Collector by the Inquiry Officer in holding inquiry proceedings ex-parte against petitioner and further holding him guilty. In my opinion, in present facts situation, no opportunity was afforded to petitioner after 29.04.1985 which was clearly a case of denial of opportunity of hearing to him so also of violation of principles of natural justice, and it vitiates very action of the disciplinary authority in passing order of retirement vide order dated 21.07.1987 (Exhibit 10), as also orders passed in appeal as well as revision petition by appellate and reviewing authorities. 16. Now the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 312.1992. I have not examined merits of the charges imputed against him since inquiry is held vitiated only on premises that opportunity was not afforded to him by Inquiry Officer after 29.04.1985. In ordinary course, matter was required to be remanded back to proceed further after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner but in totality of facts and circumstances, when the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation long back on 312.1992 and has been getting proportionate pension only, I am of the opinion that holding fresh inquiry after afflux of time of 13 years of crossing superannuation age, will not serve any fruitful purpose, and to shorten the litigation, relief is moulded so as to meet ends of justice. 17. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 21.07.1987 (Exhibit 10), 03.01.1989 (Exhibit 12), and 05.09.1990 (Exhibit 14) are hereby quashed and set-aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service till age of superannuation attained on 312.1992 but he will not be entitled for any pecuniary benefits for the intervening period from the date of punishment dated 21.07.1987 till 312.1992 and will be entitled to notional fixation of pay and retiral benefits with arrears, as a consequence whereof . All exercise so as to comply with aforesaid direction be made within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.