Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-These two writ petitions having been filed one and the same petitioner, since involve common question of law and facts, at joint request of both the parties, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In CWP No. 4965/93 Prithvi Singh, petitioner, has challenged order:- (1) dated 12.01.1984 (Exhibit-16), whereby he has been discharged from service in an inquiry under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ("CCA Rules"), in charge-sheet dated 09.06.1981(Exhibit 4); (2) dated 011.1986 (Exhibit-19) whereby revision petition under Rule 32 of CCA Rules was rejected as time barred; (3) dated 31.05.1990 (Exhibit-28) whereby review petition was also dismissed. 3. In CWP No. 5761/92 petitioner has challenged orders:- (1) dated 13.01.1984 (Exhibit-3) passed in charge-sheet dated 04.07.1981 under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, whereby he has been held guilty of all charges and inflicted with penalty of discharge from service but ordered that since he has already been discharged from service vide order dated 12.01.1984, so in case of reinstatement in appeal, then order of discharge would come into force. (2) dated 011.1986 (Exhibit-4), whereby revision petition under Rule 32 of CCA Rules was rejected as time barred. (3) dated 31.05.1990 (Exhibit-6), whereby review petition was also dismissed. 4. During pendency of writ petitions, petitioner expired on 112.1995 and his wife Smt. Mani Devi who is legal representative, on her application under Order 22 Rule 3, CPC, was substituted vide order dated 210.1996 of this Court. 5. In both writ petitions, facts are common, therefore, I narrate facts, in brief , from CWP No. 4965/1993, which will cover grievance raised in CWP No. 5761/1992. 6. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Inspector Village Panchayat, vide order dated 24.04.1953 was promoted as Inspector on 07.09.1956 and confirmed in October, 1956. 5. In both writ petitions, facts are common, therefore, I narrate facts, in brief , from CWP No. 4965/1993, which will cover grievance raised in CWP No. 5761/1992. 6. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Inspector Village Panchayat, vide order dated 24.04.1953 was promoted as Inspector on 07.09.1956 and confirmed in October, 1956. On 112.1962, he was absorbed as Inspector Gr.II in Excise and Taxation Department and whereafter was retired compulsorily under Rule 244(2) of Rajasthan Service Rules vide order dated 20.10.1975 but later on, it was withdrawn by the State Government vide order dated 03.05.1977, pursuant to which he was reinstated in service and joined on 09.05.1977, but his intervening period was not regularised by the department, as a consequence whereof , he was not paid salary which he was entitled for, despite request/representation made, he was getting only minimum of his pay and that has made his life miserable putting him under mental disturbance, and on account of such reasons, when he attended meeting of Excise Inspectors on 212.1980, he could not maintain his mental equillibruim, and with raised voice told the Excise Commissioner that he is getting Rs. 120/-as basic pay and living in semi-starvation condition, and that apart, despite his various reminders, his grievance has not been redressed affecting his working efficiency, as well, and on account of which he was under mental tension. 7. His such act was not considered to be appropriate by Excise Commissioner and on 212.1980, itself , petitioner was placed under suspension and was served with two charge-sheets dated 09.06.1981 (Exhibit-4) and 04.07.1981 (Exhibit-5). Vide order dated 18.08.1981 (Exhibit-6), District Excise Officer, Bikaner was appointed as Inquiry Officer to examine the charges levelled against him, Inquiry Officer called upon him but, as per material on record, on some occasion, petitioner was present, while presenting officer was absent and the inquiry was adjourned either because of absence of either sides during inquiry proceedings, and on one occasion, inquiry was fixed at Surajgarh, but because of lack of fund, he could not travel so as to appear in the inquiry. Lastly, application was submitted by the petitioner while he was posted at Chirawa 111.1982 that because of cumulative reasons, he has been unable to work and requested for seeking voluntary retirement from service and after submitting application for seeking voluntary retirement, he left for his village, but he was not given any information about his voluntary retirement. 8. The case of petitioner is that when he recovered from mental depression, he submitted his joining report on 24.07.1985 (Exhibit-12) but on 01.08.1985 he was told that he has already been discharged from service long back, and when he made request by submitting application dated 11.09.1985 (Exhibit-15) for supply of orders of penalty, respondents vide letter dated 05.05.1986 supplied orders dated 12.01.1984 (Exhibit-16) and dated 13.01.1984 (Exhibit-17). Against both the orders of penalty the petitioner preferred revision petitions under Rule 32 of CCA Rules and both were rejected as time barred vide orders dated 011.1986 (Exhibit-19), against which further review petitions were preferred before the Governor -that too were dismissed vide orders dated 31.05.1990 ((Exhibit 28 and Exhibit-29). Hence, these writ petitions. 9. Shri R.C. Joshi, Counsel for petitioner submitted that it is only because of the reason that petitioner raised his grievance on 212.1980 by raising voice before the Excise Commissioner against non-payment of his arrears was the solitary act of petitioner, which was not considered to be proper by Excise Commissioner (disciplinary authority) and that made him the victim of suspension besides service of two charge-sheets with consequence of discharge from service, and was not even paid salary and was allowed to work on basic pay only, which resulted in loss of his mental equillibruim and he failed to attend the inquiry proceedings, inasmuch as he has also tendered his request for voluntary retirement and despite his request, he was discharged from service by respondents, in an arbitrary manner without making due compliance of provision of CCA Rules. 10. 10. Shri Joshi further urged that after record of inquiry was forwarded under Rule 16(8) of CCA Rules, disciplinary authority, when it was not inquiring authority, was under obligation to record its own finding in respect of each charge while taking decision on record of inquiry, as well as other material for consideration under Rule 16(9) while inflicting penalty of discharge from service vide orders dated 12.01.1984 and 13.01.1984 (Exhibit-16 and Exhibit-17), and since mandatory requirement under Rule 16(9) has not been complied with, which vitiates decision of disciplinary authority. 11. Shri Joshi further contended that material on record shows that disciplinary authority was so prejudice and biased that when in the first inquiry decision was taken for discharge from service vide order dated 12.01.1984 (Exhibit-16), to be on safer side, disciplinary authority considered it proper that if order of penalty dated 12.01.1984 (Exhibit-16) in first inquiry is set aside in appeal and he is supposed to be reinstated, then he be considered to be discharged from service vide order dated 13.01.1984 (Exhibit-17) in the second inquiry initiated against him. 12. Shri Joshi also urged that orders of revisional/review authority are non-speaking orders does not disclose any reason, and the rejection on the ground of limitation was otherwise not sustainable for the reason that it only came to the notice of petitioner while he reported for duty on 24.07.1985 and within six months thereof , revision petition was filed and it was not the case of respondent at all that copy of orders of penalty of discharge from service was ever served upon the petitioner. 13. Shri Joshi lastly submitted that even if charges levelled against petitioner are taken at its face value and his guilt stood proved, yet the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and the disciplinary authority has not recorded any reason, what to say of good and sufficient, which is the requirement of law before inflicting penalty upon delinquent under Rule 14 of CCA Rules, particularly in present case, when he had already tendered his voluntary retirement under Rule 244 (1) of RSR. 14. Respondents have filed their reply to writ petitions. 14. Respondents have filed their reply to writ petitions. Shri R.B. Mathur, Counsel for respondents contended that grave misconduct was committed by petitioner, for which he was served with charge-sheets and in regular inquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, he has been provided full opportunity of hearing by the Inquiry Officer and disciplinary authority, after examining record of inquiry, accepted finding of guilt and inflicted penalty of discharge from service after recording its own independent reasons. It has further been submitted that requirement of scheme under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, has been complied with and adequate opportunity was afforded to petitioner but he failed to appear before Inquiry Officer for one or other reason, it was his own wish and no error whatsoever was committed either by Inquiry Officer or by disciplinary authority in holding him guilty. It has also been submitted that so far as revision and review petitions preferred by petitioner are concerned, no reason or justification was disclosed while submitting with such inordinate delay, as it was rightly rejected by the authority as time barred. .15. So far as nature of penalty inflicted is concerned, Shri Mathur contended that after the charges are found proved against the delinquent, looking to gravity of charges imputed against him, penalty of dismissal from service was only an appropriate punishment in present facts and circumstances, and the same has been rightly inflicted upon him. 16. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material on record. 17. As regards submission made by Shri Joshi that disciplinary authority has not applied its mind while taking decision and has not recorded its finding in respect of each charge as provided in Rule 16(9) of CCA Rules, I find from impugned orders (Exhibit-16 and Exhibit-17) passed by disciplinary authority that detailed reasons might not have been recorded in respect of each charge but conclusions arrived at shows application of mind with regard to charges imputed against petitioner. It depends upon the authority, itself , and it is manner in which finding is recorded by it, and I find no error being committed by disciplinary authority in recording its finding, which in my opinion, is in due compliance of requirement under Rule 16(9) of CCA Rules. 18. It depends upon the authority, itself , and it is manner in which finding is recorded by it, and I find no error being committed by disciplinary authority in recording its finding, which in my opinion, is in due compliance of requirement under Rule 16(9) of CCA Rules. 18. Other submission made on behalf of petitioner that copy of inquiry report was not supplied to him alongwith orders of penalty, will be otherwise of no significance particularly in view of the fact that when the revision/review petition has been rejected as time barred, and the merits of matter have not been examined by authorities concerned, when petitioner reported for duty on 24.07.1985 in the office of respondents, which has to be accepted for the reason that respondent never came out with the case that copy of order dated 12/13.01.1984 was ever served upon the petitioner, in such fact situation, in my opinion, orders passed by revisional or review authority in rejecting the petition on the ground of limitation were not justified and cannot be said to be in consonance with principles of natural justice. 19. In present facts situation, when the orders passed by revisional and review authority, are not in conformity with scheme of CCA Rules, the matter in ordinary course, was required to be remanded back for reconsideration and for passing of fresh orders after due compliance of principles of natural justice but, in the present circumstances, petitioner on the date of passing orders of penalty impugned, had rendered almost 29 years of service and was having clean record of service as nothing has come on record contrary, thereto, and that apart, he has already suffered mental agony with regard to his act on the black-day of 212.1980 and the other charges also are in no manner relate to moral turpitude and are not of such grave misconduct, on which a man with ordinary prudence may at all come to the conclusion for inflicting such a major penalty in such like nature of charges impugned and such penalty inflicted, in my opinion, cannot be said to be in any manner in consonance with Article 14 of Constitution of India, and more so when he had already expired during pendency of writ petition and his wife has come on record as his legal representative. .20. .20. I may reiterate the principle of proportionality in disciplinary action, as is well recognised by Apex Court in Bhagwat Ram vs. State of H.P., AIR 1983 SC 454 , the Apex Court observed that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14. Similarly a Constitution Bench in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 , held that with regard to punishment inflicted upon delinquent, a Court can interfere with quantum of punishment on various grounds and one of the grounds is that if penalty does not commensurate with the charge found proved against the delinquent and it then held as under:- ."……..where the Court finds that the penalty imposed by the impugned order is arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case or the requirements of that particular Government service the Court will also strike down the impugned order……." .21. In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484 , the question posed for consideration was as to whether the High Court/Tribunal can direct the authorities to reconsider the punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof or reconsider themselves to shorten the litigation. In this case, at para 18, the Apex Court has observed as under:- ."A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief , either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof ". .22. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief , either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof ". .22. The Supreme Court has further examined with regard to quantum of punishment and also examined that the punishment if disproportionate to the charge levelled against the delinquent, the punishment can be moulded even by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even in recent Judgment in Bhagwanlal Arya vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, 2004 (3) SLR 70 , the Apex Court followed its earlier decision in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India (Supra). While examining proportionality of punishment inflicted upon delinquent, the Apex Court in para 9 observed as under:- ."We are of the view that the punishment of dismissal/removal from service can be awarded only for the acts of grave nature or as cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving on corrigibility of complete unfitness for police service. Merely one incident of absence and that too because of bad health and valid and justified grounds/reasons cannot become basis for awarding such a punishment." 23. In present case, no reasons, what to say of good and sufficient, have been assigned by disciplinary authority while inflicting impugned penalty or discharge from service, which can be said to be in consonance with requirement of Rule 14 of CCA Rules-extract of which is relevant is quoted below:- "14. Nature of Penalties.-The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, which shall be recorded, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely:" (Emphasis added) 24. Nature of Penalties.-The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, which shall be recorded, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely:" (Emphasis added) 24. I am satisfied from the nature of charges imputed against petitioner, with are neither of moral turpitude nor in any manner comes within grave misconduct under Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, and the penalty of discharge from service inflicted upon petitioner, in my opinion, is highly excessive and disproportionate to the guilt found proved against him taking note of both the charge-sheets, inasmuch as petitioner has already suffered agony for last more than 20 years and even during pendency of this writ petitions, he has expired on 112.1995 and his wife as his legal representative is contesting the matter, hence on an overall conspectus of the matter and in totality of circumstances, in my opinion, ends of justice will be met if penalty of compulsory retirement is substituted in place of discharge from service inflicted upon petitioner vide impugned orders (Exhibits-16 and 17). 25. In the result, these writ petitions are partly allowed. The orders of punishment dated 12.01.1984 (Exhibit-16) and dated 13.01.1984 (Exhibit-17) are quashed and substituted with penalty of compulsory retirement, on proportionate pension and the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential terminal benefits flowing from substitution of the penalty in accordance with law. All exercise so as to comply with this order be completed within three months from receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.