Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Both the petitions filed by one and same petitioner against punishment of his removal from service inflicted in two departmental inquiries, assailing on common grounds, are being disposed of by this common order. Factual Matrix - Re. CWP No. 3734/1992 2. Petitioner was appointed as Manager in Chaksu Kriya Vikriya Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Jaipur on 25.05.1981. He alongwith one Bhagchand Jain Accountant were involved in misappropriation and embezzlement of funds and petitioner was supervisory negligent in discharge of his duties, as such was served with charge-sheet vide memo (Annexure-4) issued under orders of General Manager under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“CCA Rules”) wherein two charges were imputed against him and retired Joint Registrar (Co-operative Societies) was appointed vide order dated 012.1989 (Annexure-6) as Inquiry Officer who conducted inquiry but petitioner for his own good reasons had not participated in course of inquiry as is evident from inquiry report (Annexure-8) which proceeded ex parte. After charges were found proved by inquiry officer, record of inquiry was sent alongwith report (Annexure-8) to the disciplinary authority, who concurred with finding of guilt and served show cause notice (Annexure-9) alongwith inquiry report and after taking note of submissions made by him, disciplinary authority held him guilty of charges imputed and punished him with penalty of removal from service vide order dated 27.04.1992 (Annexure-19). Re. CWP No. 191/1993 3. In 2nd inquiry there was charge against petitioner that he alongwith Bhag Chand Jain, Acctt., was involved in embezzlement of Rs. 28,800/-for which charge-sheet (Annexure-4) was served on 010.1989 and after holding inquiry, he was held guilty as is evident from report (Annexure-10) copy whereof was supplied alongwith show cause notice vide communication (Annexure-11) and after taking note of his submissions in reply to the notice, disciplinary authority concurred with finding recorded by inquiry officer and inflicted with penalty of removal from service vide order dated 16.07.1992 (Annexure-13). Hence, these petitions. 4. Counsel for petitioner contends that he was working as Manager in the Co-operative Society and General Manager was not his appointing authority as such, very charge-sheet issued under orders of General Manager was beyond authority/competence as such very initiation of inquiry was bad in law and as a consequence whereof final punishment inflicting upon him is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 5. 5. Counsel has not disputed this fact that so far as final order of punishment is concerned, it was passed by authority competent under rules who has finally examined record of inquiry and after holding him guilty inflicted punishment of removal from service. 6. Counsel further contends that list of documents demanded were not supplied which has caused great prejudice in defending himself and that apart, retired Joint Registrar was appointed as inquiry officer which was not permissible under rules against which he had submitted application for change but no orders were passed, therefore, finding recorded by inquiry officer who was not competent to hold inquiry is violative of principles of natural justice. Counsel finally urged that even looking to services rendered by petitioner and charges which were found proved, punishment inflicted is shockingly disproportionate and requires interference by this Court and in support of his contentions, Counsel cited decisions in SBI vs. Samrendra Kishore Endow, 1994 (2) SCC 537 and State of T.N. vs. M. Natarajan, 1997 (6) SCC 415 . 7. Respondents in their reply inter-alia averred that petitioner was initially appointed as Manager under orders of Registrar (Co-operative) but his services were provided to Respondent No. 3 by Registrar (Co-operative) who has also delegated his power to the Board but subject to approval of the Registrar Co-operative Societies under the Act. It has also been averred that at no point of time, either before inquiry officer or after inquiry report was furnished to disciplinary authority, he ever raised grievance in respect of non-supply of documents and disclosed as to what was the relevancy of documents demanded and more so, he failed to participate in inquiry, itself , despite notices served upon him as is evident from inquiry report, therefore, no prejudice at all can be said to have caused to him. It has also been averred that there is no bar under rules that retired personnel cannot be appointed as inquiry officer who is even otherwise fact finding officer and is not supposed to give any opinion as such by appointing retired personnel as inquiry officer, neither it violates scheme of rules, nor principles of natural justice. 8. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and examined material on record. This fact remains undisputed that petitioner was served with two charge-sheets imputing charges with respect to misappropriation of funds and embezzlement besides supervisory negligence. 8. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and examined material on record. This fact remains undisputed that petitioner was served with two charge-sheets imputing charges with respect to misappropriation of funds and embezzlement besides supervisory negligence. In first charge-sheet there was embezzlement of Rs. 16,590/-(CWP 3734/1992) and Rs. 28,800/-(CWP 191/1993). Indisputably, in both the inquiries, despite notices served upon petitioner, he did not participate in inquiry and no reason has come forward on record for non-participation in course of inquiry. Inquiry officer in respective charge-sheets found charges proved and decision for imposition of punishment was finally taken by competent disciplinary authority, and it has not been disputed by petitioner that after serving show cause notice alongwith inquiry report and taking note of his submissions, disciplinary authority held him guilty of imputed charges and inflicted penalty of removal from service in each of inquiries independently. 9. Submission made by Counsel for petitioner that charge-sheets were issued by incompetent authority in my opinion, is of no substance, because as referred to by respondents, powers were delegated upon General Manager for initiation of disciplinary inquiry against employees subject to final approval of Registrar (Co-operative) and in both the inquiries, final approval was obtained of competent authority and that apart, even if charge-sheet has been issued by authority subordinate to competent authority but final order of punishment has been passed by the authority competent, the inquiry in no manner can be vitiated on this ground alone. 10. As regards non-supply of documents demanded by petitioner is concerned, I find that at any point of time in course of inquiry, petitioner has not pointed out relevancy of demanded documents and even contrary to it, from a perusal of inquiry report, it depicts that on all occasions, he was informed of inquiry proceedings held in course of inquiry and on some occasions, he himself , was present but never demanded documents before inquiry officer and ultimately fact remains that inquiry officer proceeded ex parte against him and even thereafter, no steps were taken by him and inquiry finally concluded ex parte, in such fact situation, in my opinion, submission of Counsel for petitioner deserves rejection. 11. 11. As regards appointment of retired personnel as inquiry officer, in my opinion, there is no bar under CCA Rules restricting initiation of inquiry proceedings by retired personnel and that apart, inquiry officer is only a fact finding officer who is not going to express any opinion, as such prejudice in no manner can be said to have caused to the petitioner. 12. Last contention made by Counsel for petitioner that punishment inflicted is dis-proportionate, is also of no substance, keeping in view seriousness of nature of charges found proved, regarding misappropriation and embezzlement of public money, leniency in no manner can be extended especially when petitioner was working as Manager in a Co-operative societies demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedure more than any other working in the society so as to protect not only public funds but also exchequer. 13. Consequently both the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No costs.