Honble ASOPA, J.–By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 31.7.1991 (Annexure 9) as well as order passed on 15.1.1993 (Annexure 11) whereby review petition submitted to the Governor has been dismissed being barred by time. (2). While working as Superintending Engineer, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules of 1958) vide memorandum dated 23.8.1986 for supervisory negligence over Mr. N.C. Garg, JEN and V.N. Sharma, Sub Engineer for the period of his working as Executive Engineer. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet which was examined and the said enquiry was converted into one under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 vide order dated 14.10.1990. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioner, punishment of censure was imposed vide order dated 31.7.1991 (Annx. 9) even after finding that though the petitioner who was charged with the responsibility for violation of Rules 70-75 of the PWF & AR is not proved, but was responsible for supervisory negligence under Rules 75-79 of the PWF & AR. (3). Against the said order, the petitioner filed review petition under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1958 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.1.1993 (Annex. 11) being time barred by 37 days. In the meanwhile, the case of the petitioner had also become due for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer and his case was considered. Result of the same was kept in sealed cover. The petitioner has also retired from service on 31.7.1991. (4). Submission of Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been punished for violation of the Rules for which he has not been charged, therefore, the disciplinary authority has acted beyond the scope of the charge. Mr. Sharma further submits that the law on the charge that it should be specific and not vague, supported by statement of allegation or in the alternative, particulars must find place in the charge itself, is well settled. Mr. Sharma further submits that the law on the charge that it should be specific and not vague, supported by statement of allegation or in the alternative, particulars must find place in the charge itself, is well settled. Here, in the instant case, petitioner was absolved of the responsibility of violation of Rules 70-75 of the PWF & AR, therefore, the disciplinary authority has acted beyond its power to consider violation of the Rules 75-79 of the PWF & AR for which neither any fresh memo of charge nor amended memo of charge nor an opportunity of making representation as well as personal hearing was given to him. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated being violative of the principles of natural justice. (5). The submission of the learned Dy. G.A. is that the main charge is of supervisory negligence and it is not necessary to specify violation of each and every rule. On a query raised by this Court, learned Dy. G.A. has submitted that the principal charged person Mr. V.N. Sharma, Sub Engineer has been dismissed from government service after completion of enquiry in respect of the same incident and Mr. N.C. Garg, JEN has also been punished. (6). Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties. (7). The charge against the petitioner was as follows: ``Shri Gopi Ram Goyal while working as Executive Engineer in Sub Division IIInd V of Division VIII during the year 1977 was found responsible for supervisory negligence in the discharge of his duties as laid down in Rules 70 to 75 and Rules 195 to 199 of PWF & AR. Due to his carelessness and negligence Shri N.C. Garg, JEN misappropriated 3375 bags of cement in collusion with Shri V.N. Sharma another Sub-Engineer amount to Rs. 67,500/-, this causing a loss to the Governor for Rs. 67,500/- as indicated in the statement of allegation. (8). In respect of the above charge, in the punishment order dated 31.7.1991 (Annexure 9) it has been mentioned as under: ^;|fi ih-MCY;w- ,Q ,.M ,-vkj- fu;e 70&75 vf/kkklh vfHk;Urk dks mRrjnk;h ugha Bgjkrs] fdUrq os fu;e 75 ls 79 ds vUrxZr i;Zos{kh; ykijokgh ds nks"kh gSA (9). 67,500/- as indicated in the statement of allegation. (8). In respect of the above charge, in the punishment order dated 31.7.1991 (Annexure 9) it has been mentioned as under: ^;|fi ih-MCY;w- ,Q ,.M ,-vkj- fu;e 70&75 vf/kkklh vfHk;Urk dks mRrjnk;h ugha Bgjkrs] fdUrq os fu;e 75 ls 79 ds vUrxZr i;Zos{kh; ykijokgh ds nks"kh gSA (9). In support of the contention that enquiry into the allegations in respect of which the petitioner (delinquent officer) had not been charged with was not proper learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India and others (2006) 5 SCC 88 . Paras 14 and 23 of the above judgment read as under: ``14. From a perusal of the requiry report, it appears to us that the disciplinary authorities proceeded on a wrong premise. The appellant was principally charged for non maintenance of ACE 8 Register. He was not charged for theft or misappropriation of 4000 Kg of telegraph copper wire or misutilisation thereof. If he was to be proceeded against for misutilisation or misappropriation of the said amount of copper wire, it was necessary for the disciplinary authority to frame appropriate charges in that behalf. Charges were said to have been framed after receipt of a report from CBI (Anti Corruption Bureau). It was, therefore, expected that definite charges of misutilisation/misappropriation of copper wire by the appellant would have been framed. The appellant, therefore, should have been charged for defalcation or misutilisation of the stores he had handled if he was to be departmentally proceeded against on that basis. The second charge shows that he had merely failed to supervise the working on the line. There was no charge that he failed to account for the copper wire over which he had physical control. 23. Evidently, the evidences recorded by the enquiry officer and inferences drawn by him were not commensurate with the charges. If it was a case of misutilisation or misappropriation, the appellant should have been told thereabout specifically. Such a serious charge could not have been enquired without framing appropriate charges. The charges are otherwise vague. We have noticed hereinbefore that the High Court also proceeded on the basis that the non-maintenance of diary amounted to misutilisation of copper wire. (10). If it was a case of misutilisation or misappropriation, the appellant should have been told thereabout specifically. Such a serious charge could not have been enquired without framing appropriate charges. The charges are otherwise vague. We have noticed hereinbefore that the High Court also proceeded on the basis that the non-maintenance of diary amounted to misutilisation of copper wire. (10). It is true that the disciplinary authority has power to amend or alter charge but in the instant case, neither the charge was amended nor altered and straightaway minor penalty was imposed without any notice, opportunity to make representation and personal hearing in respect of the said alleged violation of Rules 75-79 of PWF & AR. (11). Gauhati High Court in the case of Rajdeo Rai vs. Assam Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati and others reported in 1995 (6) SLR 557 has held that a new charge cannot be made out by the authorities., Relevant portion of para 17 is as follows:- ``17... Thus apparently the Tribunal has brought into a new charge to the original charge of the defence of which the petitioner was not afforded with any opportunity whatsoever. By such framing of a new charge altogether different from the original charge the Tribunal committed grave error of law to give definiteness to a charge otherwise vague on its mere perusal and violated the principles of natural justice. (12). This Court also had an occasion to consider the said aspect of the matter in the case of Mahendra Dixit vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 1993(3) WLC (Raj.) 578 where in para 11 it was held that it is not open to the disciplinary authority to punish the petitioner for a charge which has not been levelled. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under: ``11... When these charges have not been found proved by the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority also says that nobody has specifically stated against the petitioner, it was not open to the disciplinary authority to punish the petitioner for his negligence to prevent the happening with the accused at the Police Station. Although, the petitioner may have neglected in the performance of his duties, but unless he was charged with the allegation of negligence it was not open to the disciplinary authority to punish him with that charge. (13). Submission of the learned Dy. Although, the petitioner may have neglected in the performance of his duties, but unless he was charged with the allegation of negligence it was not open to the disciplinary authority to punish him with that charge. (13). Submission of the learned Dy. G.A. cannot be accepted in view of the fact that supervisory negligence was alleged on account of not following Rules 70-75 PWF & AR, therefore, in case further Rules 75-79 PWF & AR are considered, then, the original charge would become vague. (14). The submission of Dy. Govt. Advocate that is not necessary to allege violation of each and every rule cannot be accepted for the simple reason that said omission will make the charge vague. (15). On the issue of vague charge, Supreme Court in the case of Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in ( AIR 1986 SC 995 ) has held that vague charge-sheet without any particulars or statement of allegations will vitiate the entire enquiry proceedings. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has also held that not raising the submission will not exonerate the Department to bring home the charges. Paras 14 and 15 of the judgment are as under: ``14. Quite apart from that fact, it appears to us that the charges were vague and it was difficult to met the charges fairly by any accused. Evidence adduced was perfunctory and did not at all bring home the guilt of the accused. ``15. Shri B.D. Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent, contended that no allegations have been made before the enquiry officer or before the High Court, that the charges were vague. In fact the appellant had participated in the enquiry. That does not by itself exonerate the department to bring home the charges. (16). Patna High Court in the case of Raghu Bans Ahir vs. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 1957 Patna 100 in para 17 has held that vague charge or charge which was not disclosed cannot be taken into consideration. Para 17 is as under: 17. It is clear, therefore, that the petitioner was dismissed on vague allegations, which did not form the subject- matter of the charge which was served on him, and which he had no opportunity to meet. Para 17 is as under: 17. It is clear, therefore, that the petitioner was dismissed on vague allegations, which did not form the subject- matter of the charge which was served on him, and which he had no opportunity to meet. Simply saying ``other allegations or ``his associates conveys no definite information & is so vague and indefinite that such undescribed charges cannot possibly form the basis of any action by any authority concerned. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to know what those ``allegations against him were and what were his alleged ``atrocities. He was never told about them, and therefore, he could not possibly have met them. The result, therefore, is that the petitioner was dismissed not on the charge which was served on him, but on facts and other circumstances which were never disclosed on to him and which he had no opportunity to know or to meet. In such circumstances, it is manifest that the petitioner has not seriously prejudiced, and, there has been failure of the principles of natural justice. (17). The law on the issue of levelling the charge for imposing minor penalty and major penalty under Rule 16 or 17 of the Rules of 1958 is the same. However, there is difference in the procedure to be followed. In case of minor penalty under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, the principles of natural justice apply in a limited way of asking the delinquent to represent against the memo of charge and on demand, grant him personal hearing. But no detailed procedure of enquiry as prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 is applicable. Still, on the issue of charge, the law is same that the charge should not be vague but it should be specific so that effective representation/reply could be given by the delinquent official and further, as per the procedure, he has a right to request for personal hearing and on demand, it is being granted. Therefore, the aforesaid judgments wherein punishment orders have been passed without amending or altering the charge and further without giving any opportunity of making representation in respect thereto would apply in the case of minor penalty also. (18). From the record, it appears that the immediate supervision was of the Asstt. Engineer S.L. Setia who had also been charged and the same punishment of censure has been awarded to him. (18). From the record, it appears that the immediate supervision was of the Asstt. Engineer S.L. Setia who had also been charged and the same punishment of censure has been awarded to him. As regards the Executive Engineer, explanation of the petitioner that he had no direct supervision over the Sub Engineer or the Junior Engineer, appears to be correct. Otherwise also, charge against the petitioner was that he was responsible for not following Rules 70-75 of PWF & AR and it was held that he was no responsible for violation of the same but making him responsible resulting in supervisory negligence for violation of Rules 75-79 of the PWF & AR is virtually amendment/alteration of the charge and he has been punished for the violation of the rules for which no charge has been levelled. (19). In the result, the writ petition is allowed, punishment of censure is quashed and the respondents are directed to open the result of the sealed cover and act in accordance with the result. If found suitable, the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits. Three months time is given to the respondents to pass necessary orders, as indicated above.