JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure-15) whereby the petitioner has been punished by stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect and the order dated 22.3.2001 (Annexure-16) whereby the review petition of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director, Fisheries against the vacancy of the year 1988-89. The other relevant facts, in brief, of the case, as per petitioner, are that the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 23.9.1998 of work as Assistant Director, Fisheries and Fish Farmer Development Agency (In short "FFDA") levelling four charges. The gist of the charges No. 1 to 4 is that the petitioner while discharging Government work has ignored the Government instructions/rule in this regard and made irregular allotments by misusing his office; he has deliberately allotted larger water area to less fish farmer thereby caused revenue loss to the State Government; deliberately ignored the instructions issued by the Directorate and allotted the reservoir to fish farmer without assessing the water area and did not conduct the proceeding of reverting the said reservoir to the department on account of which the general auction could not be done and the said inaction gave an opportunity to the fish farmer to go to the Court against the department and obtain stay order. The petitioner gave the interim reply on 4.3.1999 and further reply on 26.4.1999 on inspection of the record. The said replies were not considered and straightaway, vide order dated 8.6.1999, Additional Commissioner (Ist) Departmental Enquiry, Jaipur was appointed as enquiry officer. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry submitted the report on 9.6.2000 and found that charge No. 1 & 3 are fully proved whereas charge No. 2 & 4 are partially proved. The petitioner submitted a representation against the same on 17.7.2000 and objected the finding of guilt, but without consideration of the said representation, the impugned order dated 24.10.2000 was passed by the disciplinary authority on finding four charges proved without any notice of disagreement for the exonerated part of charge No. 2 & 4. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation against the same on 17.7.2000 and objected the finding of guilt, but without consideration of the said representation, the impugned order dated 24.10.2000 was passed by the disciplinary authority on finding four charges proved without any notice of disagreement for the exonerated part of charge No. 2 & 4. 3. It is stated in the writ petition that the enquiry officer has held the petitioner guilty of the allegations which were not part of the charge sheet, the enquiry report is contrary to its own discussion made therein or evidence on record particularly with reference to charge No. 1 and charge No. 2. In respect of charge No. 1 he has concluded that the allotment in Bundh Chhaparwara was made on 26.3.1990 by his predecessor P.S. Bhandari whereas the petitioner was posted there on 5.7.1990 and further there is no proof that Bundh Chhaparwada is of 80 to 100 hectare, but still the charge has been held to be fully proved and as regard charge No. 2, he himself has not held the petitioner guilty of causing any loss to the State Government. 4. Apart from above, other substantial grievances of the petitioner stated in the writ petition are that the enquiry officer has gone beyond the charge levelled and gave a finding in respect of the allegations which were not part of the charge without any amendment in the charge and notice to the petitioner. He has also raised the grievance that the disciplinary authority has also not given him any notice of disagreement before holding the petitioner even guilty of the exonerated part of charge No. 2 & 4, therefore, findings of the enquiry officer are either based on no evidence or are perverse or he has acted beyond the scope of the charge and further the disciplinary authority has grossly violated the principles of natural justice by holding the petitioner guilty of charge for which the petitioner was not required to submit any representation as the enquiry officer himself exonerated him of the charge No. 2 & 4 partly. 5. The State Government submitted reply and taken the objection of not filing the review petition before the Hon'ble Governor. Another objection raised by the respondents is that this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot exercise the appellate jurisdiction. 5. The State Government submitted reply and taken the objection of not filing the review petition before the Hon'ble Governor. Another objection raised by the respondents is that this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot exercise the appellate jurisdiction. The respondent has further stated that the disciplinary proceedings are in accordance with the principles of natural justice and Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958. The disciplinary authority also examined the material on record and arrived at independent finding on each charge. 6. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority have acted beyond the scope of the charge in holding the petitioner guilty of part charges/full charges. The finding on some of the part of the charges are perverse. The disciplinary authority has not issued any notice of disagreement for considering the part charge of charge No. 2 & 4 as proved. The findings on some part of the charges are based on no evidence, therefore, same is liable to be quashed being perverse in nature as well as in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of the aforesaid submission, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Gopi Ram Goyal v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2007(1) WLC (Raj.) 335 wherein this Court has held that charge cannot be amended without notice and further the enquiry officer has no authority to travel beyond the charge levelled. On the issue of scope of interference in the findings of the disciplinary authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has placed reliance on the Constitutional Bench judgment of Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. H.C. Goel- AIR 1964 SC 364 wherein it has been held that in case of finding not supported by any evidence then the Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. He also placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in case of Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 10 wherein it has been held that it can be interfered in case of no evidence and findings are perverse. He also placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in case of Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 10 wherein it has been held that it can be interfered in case of no evidence and findings are perverse. On the further issue of notice of disagreement, counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra- (1998) 7 SCC 84 . 7. Submission of the State Government is that writ petition is not maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedy of filing the review petition before the Hon'ble Governor and further the finding of the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority cannot be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On merit, submission of the State Government is that the said findings are based on the material available on record. 8. I have gone through the contents of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties. 9. On merit, submission of the State Government is that the said findings are based on the material available on record. 8. I have gone through the contents of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties. 9. Before proceeding further, I would like to refer the four charges along with statement of allegations levelled against the petitioner, relevant portion of findings of the enquiry officer and conclusion of the enquiry officer as well as finding given by the disciplinary authority on each charge, which are as follows :Charge No. 1 ;g fd mDr Jh ih0ds0 vks>k] lgk;d funs'kd eRl;] eRl; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k t;iqj ds in dj dk;Z djrs gq, jktdh; dk;Z esa fu;eksa dh vuns[kh djrs gq, vfu;fer :i ls cka/kksa dk vkoaVu djds vius in dk nq:i;ksx fd;k ftlds fy;s Jh vks>k mRrjnk;h gSA Statement of allegation ;g fg mDr Jh ih0ds0 vks>k] lgk;d funs'kd eRl;] eRl; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k t;iqj ds in ij dk;Z djrs gq, jktdh; dk;Z esa funs'kky; ,oa 'kklu }kjk eRl; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k dks vkoafVr tyk'k;ksa dks fcuk ty{ks= dk fu/kkZj.k ( xfBr desVh ls ) djk;s fcuk gh erL; d`"kdksa ,oa Bsdsnkjks dks ykHk igaqpkus dh fu;r ls de eRl; d`"kdksa dks tkucw> dj vkoafVr fd;kA ca/k pkanjk.kk dk ty{ks= yxHkx 80 ls vfHkdj.k }kjk ek= fuEu 8 eRl; d`"kdksa dks gh vkoaVu fd;k x;k& 1 yknwjke iq= Jh dkywjke fuoklh xzke pkanjkuk 2 guqeku eh.kk iq= Jh dY;k.k lgk; '' '' 3 ykFkwjke iq= Jh lqyrku '' '' 4 jke/ku iq= Jh eaxyjke '' '' 5 Jo.k eh.kk iq= Jh lqyrku '' '' 6 jkethyky iq= Jh eaxyjke '' '' 7 Hkjryky iq= Jh HkS:jke '' '' 8 lhrkjke iq= Jh Nhrj jke '' '' 10. bl izdkj vfHkdj.k }kjk fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ,d eRl; d`"kdksa dks ,d gSDVj ikuh vkoaVu djus ds fu;e dk tkucw> dj mYya?ku fd;k x;kA bl izdkj vfHkdj.k ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds fu;eksa dh vuns[kh djrs gq, Jh ih0ds0 vks>k us vius in dk nq:i;ksx fd;k ftlds fy;s os nks"kh gSaA Relevant protion of findings of the enquiry Officer. bl izdkj vfHkdj.k }kjk fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ,d eRl; d`"kdksa dks ,d gSDVj ikuh vkoaVu djus ds fu;e dk tkucw> dj mYya?ku fd;k x;kA bl izdkj vfHkdj.k ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds fu;eksa dh vuns[kh djrs gq, Jh ih0ds0 vks>k us vius in dk nq:i;ksx fd;k ftlds fy;s os nks"kh gSaA Relevant protion of findings of the enquiry Officer. vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dk ;g dFku Hkh lgh gS fd funs'kd] eRl; foHkkx] jktLFkku t;iqj us vius vkns'k dzekad 15693&97 fnukad 12-7-94 }kjk cU/k pkanjk.kk] rglhy nkSlk dks okf"kZd yht jkf'k :i;s 20]000@& ij vkoaVu vof/k 5 o"kZ gsrq iwoZ ds vkoaVu dh vof/k c<+kbZ xbZA ;g lgh gS fd vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk cU/k pkanjk.kk dk tks {ks= yxHkx 80 ls 100 gSDVj gksus dk dksbZ izek.k vFkok lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS fQj Hkh vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dk ;g dFku fd ty {ks= dk fu/kkZj.k {ks= 8 gSDVj iwoZ esa fd;k x;k Fkk blfy;s uohuhdj.k ds le; mUgs ty {ks= dk iqu% fu/kkZj.k djus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha FkhA ekU; ugha gSA jktLFkku eRl; fu;eksa ds vuqlkj u rks dksbZ uohuhdj.k dk izko/kku gS vkSj u gh vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk iwoZ ds eRl; vf/kdkjh }kjk fd;s x;s ty{ks= ds vkoaVu dk uohuhdj.k fd;k x;kA ,DthfoV i&1 ds voyksdu ls ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk funs'kd] eRl; foHkkx ds }kjk fn;s x;s vkns'k ,DthfoV Mh&10 ds dze esa 9 eRL; d`"kdksa dk l?ku eRL; ikyu gsrq cU/k pkanjk.kk es ty{ks= dk vkoaVu fd;k x;kA vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk vkoaVu vof/k ek= ugha c<+kbZ xbZ gSA vfirq u;s fljs ls vkoaVu fd;k x;k gS ,slk djus ls iwoZ mUgsa ty {ks= dk fu/kkZj.k djkuk pkfg, Fkk tks mUgksaus ugha djok;kA blfy;s muds fo:) yxk;k x;k vkjksi izekf.kr gksrk gSA Conclusion of the enquiry officer tkap fjiksVZ ds i`"B la[;k 5 ls 7 esa vafdr vuqlkj vkjksi la[;k&1 iw.kZr;k izHkkfor gksrk gSA Finding of the disciplinary authority bl vkjksi ds lUnHkZ es ;g rF; vizekf.kr jgk gS fd pkanjk.kk dk ty {ks= 80&100 gS] jgk gS ysfdu 'ks"k rF; vkjksi ds fo:) izekf.kr gks x;s gSaA vkjksfir vf/kdkjh us 8 O;fDr;ksa dks vkaoVu fd;k gSA vkoaVu i= fnukad 12-7-94 dks izlkfjr gS ftlesa Li"V :i ls vadu gS fd ty {ks= fnukad 17-6-94 ls 31-3-99 rd vkoafVr fd;k tkrk gSA ;g vkoaVu fdlh izdkj ls uohuhdj.k ugha gS cfYd ewy vkoaVu gh gSA bu vkoaVuksa esa fo'ks"k :i ls folaxfr vk'k;iwoZd j[kh xbZ gS fd vkoaVu dk ty{ks= dk dksbZ vadu ugha fd;k x;kA pkanjk.kk cka/k o"kZ 1991 ds mijkUr x Js.kh ds cka/kksa esa lfEefyr gks x;k Fkk] ,slh fLFkfr esa vkoaVu djus ls iwoZ tyk'k; dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkuk vko';d Fkk] blds fy;s lfefr xfBr jgh gS ftlesa vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk] flapkbZ foHkkx ;k muds izfrfuf/k] eq[; vf/k'kk"kh iapk;r] dks"kkf/kdkjh lgk;d dks"kkf/kdkjh dks lfEefyr djrs gq;s desVh ty fu/kkZj.k gsrq xfBr Fkh ysfdu ty fu/kkZj.k ugha djok;k x;kA Jh vks>k }kjk iwoZ o"kksZa esa dHkh o"kZ 86 esa g;s ty fu/kkZj.k dks ty fu/kkZj.k gksuk eku fy;k x;k gS tks vuqfpr gSA vr% vkjksi izekf.kr gksrk gSA Charge No.2 ;g fd mDr Jh ih0ds0 vks>k] lgk;d funs'kd eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k t;iqj ds in ij dk;Z djrs gq, tkucw>dj vf/kd ty{ks= ds ca/kksa dks de eRL; d`"kdksa dks vkoaVu dj jkT; ljdkj dks jktLo dh gkfu igaqpkbZA ftlds fy;s Jh vks>k mRrjnk;h gSA Statement of allegation ;g fd mDr Jh ih0ds0 vks>k] lgk;d funs'kd eRL;] eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k t;iqj ds in dk dk;Z djrs gq, vfHkdj.k dks vkoafVr tyk'k;ksa dks tkucw>dj eRL; d`"kdksa dks vuqfpr ykHk igqapkus dh uh;r ls vf/kd ty{ks= ds tyk'k; dks de eRL; d`"kdksa dks vkoaVu fd;kA tSls fd cka/k f>yfeyh 6 gsDVj dk ikuh gksrs gq;s Hkh ek= eRL; d`"kdksa dks& 1 tgwj [kkWa iq= Jh eksys [kkWa fuoklh nkSlk 2 'kelqn~nhu iq= Jh tgwj [kkWa " " 3 iwj.key dksyh iq= Jh gjlgk; " " fnukad 12-8-91 dks vkoafVr fd;k x;k rFkk blh tyk'k; esa fuEu nks eRL; d`"kdksa& 1 yYyw yky jSxj iq= Jh iwj.kkey jSxj fu0nkSlk 2 eqtQj [kkWa iq= Fkh jQhd [kkWa fu0cknjk dks fnukad 6-1-93 dks 'kkfey fd;k x;kA ftlls vxLr] 91 ls ysdj tuojh] 93 rd dqy N% gSDVj ikuh esa dsoy rhu eRL; d`"kdksa us gh eRL; ikyu dk dk;Z fd;k ,oa 6-1-93 ls ikap eRL; d`"kdksa us tyk'k; esa ikyu dk dk;Z fd;kA mDr tyk'k; dh uhykeh ls foRrh; o"kZ 1997&98 esa :i;s 3-26 yk[k dh vk; foHkkx dks izkIr gqbZ] tcfd eRL; d`"kdksa ls ek= 8000@& :i;s gh vk; izkIr gqbZA blls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd Jh vks>k }kjk tkucw> dj eRL; d`"kdksa dks ykHk igaqpkus dh uh;r ls ca/k dk vkoaVu vfHkdj.k esa djk;kA ftlls jkT; ljdkj ,oa foHkkx dks 2-5 yk[k :i;s dh jktLo gkfu gqbZA ftlds fy;s Jh vks>k nks"kh gSA Relevant portion of findings of the enquiry officer ysfdu lk{; ds vHkko esa jkT; ljdkj dks 2-5 yk[k :i;s dh gkfu dk vkjksi izekf.kr ugha gksrkA vkjksi dk 'ks"k Hkkx iw.kZ :i ls izekf.kr gksrk gSA rF; Hkh izekf.kr gksrk gS fd f>yfeyh esa ty {ks= dk fu/kkZj.k djk;s cxSj eRL; d`"kdksa dks vkoaVu fd;k x;kA tks iw.kZr;k fu;e fo:) gSA Conclusion of the enquiry officer bl tkap fjiksVZ ds i`"B la[;k 10 ls 12 esa vafdr vuqlkj vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk vkjksi la[;k&2 o vkjksi fooj.k i= esa vafdr vuqlkj jkT; ljdkj 2-5 yk[k :i;s dh gkfu igqapkus ds vkjksi dks NksM+dj vkjksi dk 'ks"k Hkkx iw.kZr;k izekf.kr gksrk gSA Finding of the disciplinary authority foHkkxh; tkap ds nkSjku ;g izrkf.kr gks pqdk gS fd Jh tgwj [kka] jkeeqnhu] iwj.key dksyh dks fnukad 12-8-91 dks vkoafVr fd;k x;k gSA Jh yYywyky jSxj vkSj eqtQj [kka dks fnukad 6-1-93 dks 'kkfey fd;k x;kA o"kZ 91 ls 93 rd dsoy 3 eRL; d`"kd iwjs tyk'k; dk mi;ksx djrs jgs vkSj bl 3 o"kZ dh vof/k es jkT; ljdkj dks jktLo gkfu gksrh jghA bl vkoaVu esa ty {ks= dk vadu ugha fd;k x;k gS fd fdruk ty{ks= vkoafVr fd;k x;k gSA 6 gS ikuh dk dsyo 3 d`"kdksa us fnukad 12-8-91 ls 5-1-93 rd mi;ksx fd;k gSA ;fn ;g ty{ks= 'ks"k vU; dks Hkh o"kZ 91 esa Hkh vkoafVr dj fn;k tkrk rks jkT; ljdkj dks vkSj vk; fuf'pr :i ls gksuh FkhA tkap vf/kdkjh dk fu"d"kZ Lohdkj ;ksX; gS vr% vjksi izekf.kr gksrk gSA Charge No. 3 ;g fd mDr Jh ih0ds0 vks>k] lgk;d funs'kd eRL;] eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k t;iqj ds in ij dk;Z djrs gq;s eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k }kjk ca/k vkoaVu izfdz;k esa 'kklu }kjk ,oa funs'kky;] eRL; }kjk fn;s x;s funs'kksZa dh vuns[kh djrs gq, mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds funsZ'kksa dh vogsyuk dh ftlds fy;s Jh vks>k mRrjnk;h gSA Statement of allegation ;g fd mDr Jh ih0ds0 vks>k] lgk;d funs'kd eRL;] eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k t;iqj ds in ij dk;Z djrs gq, vfHkdj.k }kjk ca/k vkoaVu dh izfdz;k esa 'kklu rFkk funs'kky; eRL; }kjk fn;s x;s fn'kk funsZ'kksa dh tkucw> dj vuns[kh dhA vfHkdj.k dks vkoafVr tyk'k;ksa dk eRL; d`"kdksa dks vkoaVu djus ls iwoZ ml tyk'k; dk izcU/kd dk;Zdkj.kh }kjk ty{ks= dk fu/kkZj.k djk;k tkuk Fkk] ijUrq fcuk ty{ks= dk fu/kkZj.k djk;k tkuk Fkk] ijUrq fcuk ty{ks= ds fu/kkZj.k gh tyk'k; vkoaVu fd;s x;s] rFkk vkoafVr tyk'k;ksa dh vof/k iw.kZ gksus ds i'pkr~ tyk'k; foHkkx dks ykSVk;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZA tSlk fd ca/k fpjkSVk vfHkdj.k dks funs'kky; ds i= dzekad ,Q 3 ( 89 ) eRL;@fodkl@84&85@24413-17 fnukad 18-9-96 }kjk vfHkdj.k dks 10&15 o"kZ ds fy;s yht ij vkoafVr fd;k x;kA bls vfHkdj.k }kjk 5 o"kZ ds fy;s i= dzekad 1077&80 fnukad 10-12-86 dks pkj eRL; d`"kdksa& 1- ;klhu [kkWa iq= Jh Q;kt [kkWa 2- vQQw [kkWa iq= Jh c'khj [kkWa 3- uQhl [kkWa iq= Jh jetku [kkWa] 4- xQQkj [kkWa iq= Jh eu[kku [kkWa Dks fnukad 9-12-86 ls 8-12-91 rd vkoafVr fd;k x;k rRi'pkr~ 9-12-91 ls 31-3-96 rd iqu% i= dzekad 1257&60 fnukad 11-12-91 }kjk uohuhdj.k fd;k x;kA bu tyk'k;ksa dks 31-3-96 ds i'pkr~ foHkkx dks ykSVkuk Fkk tks fd vfHkdj.k }kjk ugha ykSVk;k x;kA blh izdkj ca/k ek/kkslkxj dk vfHkdj.k dks vkoaVu funs'kky; ds i= dzekad 14458&63 fnukad 31-5-86 dks 10 ls 15 o"kZ ds fy;s vkoaVu fd;k x;k ftls vfHkdj.k }kjk i= dzekad 790&97 fnukad 15-7-86 }kjk 10 o"kZ ds fy;s 25-7-86 ls 24-7-86 rd vkoafVr fd;kA bl tyk'k; dks 10 o"kZ i'pkr~ foHkkx ykSVkuk Fkk] ijUrq vfHkdj.k }kjk foHkkx dks ugha ykSVk;k x;kA ca/k NkijokMk vfHkdj.k dks funs'kky; ds i=kad 314&18 fnukad 2-1-90 }kjk 'kklu ds funsZ'kkuqlkj 15000@& :i;s izfro"kZ dh fuf'pr yht ij ikap o"kZ ds fy;s vkoafVr fd;k x;kA tks vfHkdj.k }kjk eRL; d`"kdksa dks fnukad 3-2-90 ls fnukad 2-2-95 rd vkoafVr fd;k x;kA mDr tyk'k; dk ikap o"kZ i'pkr~ eRL; d`"kdksa dks vkoaVu ls iowZ iqueZwY;kadu djk;k tkuk Fkk] ijUrq vfHkdj.k }kjk funsZ'kksa dh ikyuk fd;s fcuk gh vius Lrj ij 31-3-99 rd ds fy;s eRL; d`"kdksa dks vkoafVr dj fn;k x;kA bl izdkj Jh vks>k us 'kklu }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa ,oa funs'kky; }kjk tkjh funsZ'kksa dh tkucw>dj vuns[kh dh tks fd mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa dh vogsyuk djus dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA ftlds fy;s Jh vks>k nks"kh gSA Relevant portion of findings of the enquiry officer ,slk djrs le; u rks fu;eksa dh ikyuk dh xbZ vkSu u gh funs'kd }kjk fu/kkZfjr yht jkf'k :0 20]000 ij izfro"kZ dh o`f) dh xbZA bl izdkj vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk jkT; ljdkj ,oa eRL; vfHkdj.k dks vkfFkZd gkfu igqapkbZ rFkk vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk jktdh; vkns'kksa dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZA blls vkjksfir vf/kdkjh ds fo:) yxk;k x;k vkjksi dk ;g Hkkx vkjksi fooj.k i= esa vafdr vuqlkj iw.kZr;k izekf.kr gksrk gSA Conclusion of the enquiry officer bl tkap fjiksVZ ds i`"B la[;k 17 ls 19 esa vafdr vuqlkj vkjksi la[;k&3 iw.kZ :i ls izekf.kr gksrk gSA Finding of the disciplinary authority Jh vks>k }kjk ;g jkf'k 10 izfr'kr dh nj ls c<+kdj olwyh dh tkrh rks 22500 :i;s esa vkoafVr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s Fkk ysfdu ek= 20 gtkj :i;s esa gh vkoaVu dj fn;k x;kA tkap vf/kdkjh dk fu"d"kZ mfpr gS vr% vkjksi izekf.kr gksrk gSA Charge No. 4 ;g fd mDr Jh ih0ds0 vks>k] lgk;d funs'kd eRL;] eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k t;iqj ds in ij dk;Z djrs gq, foHkkx }kjk eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k] t;iqj dks vkoafVr tyk'k;ksa dks fu/kkZfjr vof/k i'pkr~ foHkkx dks ugha ykSVk;k ftlls eRL; d`"kdksa dks U;k;ky; esa tkus ,oa foHkkx ds fo:) LFkxu izkIr djus dk volj feyk tks fd tkucw> dj foHkkx ds fo:) eRL; d`"kdksa dks lkFk nsus d laKk esa vkrk gSA ftlds fy;s Jh vks>k nks"kh gSA Statement of allegation ;g fd mDr Jh ih0ds0 vks>k] lgk;d funs'kd eRL;] eRL; ikyd fodkl vfHkdj.k t;iqj ds in ij dk;Z djrs gq;s foHkkx }kjk vfHkdj.k dks vkoafVr tyk'k;ksa dks fu/kkZfjr vof/k i'pkr~ foHkkx dks ugha ykSVk;k ftlls tyk'k;ksa dks vke uhykeh esa j[ks tkus ls iwoZ gh eRL; d`"kdksa us foHkkx ds fo:) U;k;ky; esa tkus dk volj fey x;k rFkk foHkkx ds fo:) eRL; d`"kdksa us LFkxu izkIr dj fy;kA ca/k fpjksVk] ca/k fcukSjh lkxj] ca/k ek/kkslkxj rFkk ca/k NkijokM+k dks ;fn vfHkdj.k }kjk le; jgrs foHkkx dks ykSVkus lEcfU/kr dk;Zokgh dh gksrh rks mDr tyk'k;ksa ds eRL; d`"kdksa ds }kjk U;k;ky; esa tkdj LFkxu izkIr djus dk volj ugha fey ikrkA ftlds fy;s Jh vks>k nks"kh gSA Relevant portion of findings of the enquiry officer vkjksfir vf/kdkjh ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi la[;k&4 ds lEcU/k esa vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij ;g ik;k x;k fd ca/k fpjksM+k] cU/k fcUnkSjh lkxj] ca/k ek/kkslkxj dks le; jgrs vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk vfHkdj.k dh vksj ls bu tyk'k;ksa dks foHkkx dks ugha ykSVk;k x;k ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i mDr cU/kksa dks vke uhykeh esa ugha fy;k tk ldkA tgka rd cU/k NkijokM+k dk iz'u gS vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dh bl nyhy ds fo:) dksbZ fVIi.kh ugha dh xbZ fd os fnukad 31-3-99 dks vU;= inLFkkfir Fks] ,slh fLFkfr esa cU/k NkijokM+k dks foHkkx dks ugha ykSVkus ds lEcU/k esa vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dks nks"kh ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA ;g Hkh ik;k tkrk gS fd vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk mDr tyk'k;ksa dks mudh vkoaVu vof/k ds lekfIr ds i'pkr~ foHkkx dks ugha ykSVk;s tkus dh otg ls eRL; d`"kdksa dks U;k;ky; esa tkus dk volj izkIr gqvkA vkjksfir vf/kdkjh ds bl d`R; ls ;g Hkh izekf.kr gksrk gS fd vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk tkucw> dj foHkkx ds fo:) eRL; d`"kdksa dks vius d`R; ls lg;ksx iznku fd;kA bl leLr d`R; ds fy;s vkjksfir vf/kdkjh fuf'pr :i ls nks"kh gSA Conclusion of the enquiry officer tkap fjiksVZ ds i`"B la[;k 21 ,oa 22 esa vafdr vuqlkj ca/k NkijokM+k dks NksM+ 'ks"k tyk'k;ksa ds lEcU/k esa vkjksi la[;k&4 esa vafdr ,oa vkjksi fooj.k i= esa vafdr vuqlkj vkjksi izekf.kr gksrk gSA Finding of the disciplinary authority ca/k fcukSjh lkxj ds ekeys esa fjV ;kfpdk 2038@96 enuyky cuke jkT; }kjk LFkxu vkns'k fnukad 25-4-96 dks tkjh gqvk gSA cka/k fpjksaVk ds lUnHkZ esa flfoy U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds okn la[;k 132@96 esa fnukad 17-4-96 dks LFkxu vkns'k vfUre :i ls izlkfjr fd;s x;s gS tcfd Bsdk lekIr fnukad 31-3-96 dks gh gks x;k FkkA blh izdkj cka/k ek/kkslkxj esa Hkh t;yky o vU;k }kjk nk;j okn esa okn la[;k 137@96 esa flfoy dksVZ us LFkxu vkns'k fnukad 17-4-96 dks izlkfjr fd;s gSaA vr% vkjksfir vf/kdkjh }kjk le; jgrs gq, dk;Zokgh dh tkrh rks U;k;ky;ksa ls LFkxu vkns'k izkIr djus dk volj gh d`"kdksa dks ugha feyrkA vr% vkjksfir vf/kdkjh dk vH;kosnu Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS ,oa tkap vf/kdkjh dk fu"d"kZ mfpr gSA vkjksfir izekf.kr gksrk gSA 10. Now, I would like to deal with the objection raised by the respondents with regard to availability of alternate remedy of review before the Hon'ble Governor. The Supreme Court in V. Vella Sueny v. I.G.P., Tamil Nadu -1981(3) SLR 39 has held that debarring a person to file a writ petition on the ground of availability of remedy of review would be harsh and further this Court in Jethmal v. State of Rajasthan- 1985 RLR 424 and Dr. R.K. Sharma v. State- 1989(1) RLR 659 has held that review under Rule 34 is no bar to the writ petition. The relevant para 4 of the judgment in case of Dr. R.K. Sharma is as follows : "4. Before dealing with the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the case, it is necessary to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. The submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate is that a remedy by way of review to the Governor under Rule 34 of the Rules was available to the petitioner, and the petitioner, having failed to take resort to the said remedy of review provided under the Rules, the writ petition is not maintainable. In my opinion, the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate cannot be upheld in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the first place, the aforesaid preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition has not been raised in the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents and it has been raised for the first time during the course of arguments in the writ petition. Secondly, the remedy of review provided under Rule 34 of the Rules cannot be held to be an equally efficacious remedy inasmuch as the impugned order dated 12th June, 1973, has been passed by the State Government in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the power of review has also to be exercised by the Governor in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The power of review conferred under Section 34 of the Rules is in the nature of revisional power, and in the context of revisional power, the Supreme Court, in (1) Collector of Customs and Excise, Cochin and others v. M/s. A.S. Bava : AIR 1968 SC 13 , has laid down that it is settled law that the existence of a remedy by way of revision does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the reasons aforesaid, the preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate is rejected." In view of the aforesaid judgment, the objection regarding availability of alternate remedy is over-ruled. 11. The other objection is that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can not be exercised to re- appreciate the evidence made in the enquiry and reach a different conclusion, is not available as the petitioner has himself confined his case on the issue of beyond the scope of charge, no evidence and perverse finding and I am also not going to re-appreciate the evidence. 12. Now, it would be appropriate to refer the other case law cited by the petitioner. 13. This Court in Gopi Ram Goyal's case (supra), which is a case of minor penalty, after discussing the judgment of the Supreme Court and High Court of major penalty has held that law on the issue of leveling the charge for imposing minor penalty and major penalty under Rule 16 and 17 of the Rules of 1958 is the same. Further there is a difference in the procedure to be followed. It was further held in the said case that the judgments wherein punishments orders have been passed without giving any opportunity of making representation in respect thereto would apply in case of minor penalty. The present case is of major penalty, therefore, the charge is required to be amended before leading the evidence by the parties in order to provide him an opportunity to know and to meet the charges, otherwise his defence will be seriously prejudiced. Para 16 & 17 of the same is as follows : "16. The present case is of major penalty, therefore, the charge is required to be amended before leading the evidence by the parties in order to provide him an opportunity to know and to meet the charges, otherwise his defence will be seriously prejudiced. Para 16 & 17 of the same is as follows : "16. Patna High Court in the case of Raghu Bans Ahir v. 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. 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 been seriously prejudiced, and, therefore, has been failure of the principles of natural justice." 17. The law on the issue of leveling 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. 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." (emphasis supplied) 14. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel- AIR 1964 SC 364 , Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court has held that High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned orders rests is not supported by any evidence at all. The relevant portion of para 20 of the said judgment is as follows : ".....In dealing with a writ petition filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Article 311(2), the High Court under Article 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. Although the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order, nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a pubic servant under the statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings, which is the basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence....." (emphasis supplied) 15. In Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.- (1999) 2 SCC 10 again the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution in a departmental enquiry has been confined to no evidence or is such as could iot be reached by an ordinary prudent man or is perverse or is made at the dictates of a superior authority. The para 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the said judgment are is follows : "6. It is no doubt true that the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the Enquiry Officer as a matter of course. The Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the Appellate Authority. But this does not mean that in no circumstance can the Court interfere. The power of judicial review available to the High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the dictate of the superior authority. 7. In Nand Kishore v. State of Bihar , it was held that the disciplinary proceedings before a domestic Tribunal are of quasi-judicial character and, therefore, it is necessary that the Tribunal should arrive at its conclusions on the basis of some evidence, that is to say, such evidence which, and that too, with some degree of definitions, points to the guilt of the delinquent and does not leave the matter in a suspicious state as mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. If, therefore, there is no evidence to sustain the charges framed against the delinquent, he cannot be held to be guilty as in that event, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer would be perverse. 8. If, therefore, there is no evidence to sustain the charges framed against the delinquent, he cannot be held to be guilty as in that event, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer would be perverse. 8. The findings, recorded in a domestic enquiry, can be characterised as perverse if it is shown that such a finding is not supported by any evidence on record or is not based on the evidence adduced by the parties or no reasonable person could have come to those findings on the basis of that evidence. This principle was laid down by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao , in which the question was whether the High Court, under Article 226, could interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry. This decision was followed in Central Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Jain and Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors. In Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration through Secretary (Labour) and Others , it was laid down that where the findings of misconduct are based on no legal evidence and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could come, the findings can be rejected as perverse. It was also laid down that where a quasi-judicial tribunal records findings based on no legal evidence and the findings are his mere ipse dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and stands vitiated. 9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. (emphasis supplied) 16. The petitioner has also placed strong reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra- (1998) 7 SCC 84 wherein it has been held that the disciplinary authority has to give notice before disagreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer. The relevant para 18 of the said judgment is as follows : "18. Under Regulation-6 the inquiry proceedings can be conducted either by an inquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority itself. The relevant para 18 of the said judgment is as follows : "18. Under Regulation-6 the inquiry proceedings can be conducted either by an inquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority itself. When the inquiry is conducted by the inquiry officer his report is not final or conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with decision of the disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary authority which can impose the penalty and not the inquiry officer. Where the disciplinary authority itself holds an inquiry an opportunity of hearing has to be granted by him. When the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the inquiry officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous that where the charged officers succeed before the inquiry officer they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the inquiry officers' report and, while recording of guilt, imposes situation the charged officer must have an opportunity to represent before the Disciplinary Authority before final findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed. This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of inquiry as explained in Karunakar's case." (emphasis supplied) 17. A bare perusal of the judgment in case of Kuldeep Singh (supra) would reveal that finding of guilt although would not normally be interfered with, the Court can interfere therewith if the same is based on no evidence or is such as could not be reached by an ordinary prudent man or is perverse or is made at the dictates of the superior authority. Herein the instant case, submission of the petitioner is that the enquiry officer has acted beyond the scope of the charges and further the same is based on no evidence or is such as could not be reached by an ordinary prudent man or is perverse, is to be seen with regard to the aforesaid charges, enquiry report and impugned punishment order. 18. 18. On the issue of violation of principles of natural justice as well as rules, the disciplinary authority has committed a serious error of law by giving the findings that the remaining part of charge No. 2 & 4 are also proved without issuing any notice of disagreement as held by the Supreme Court in case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. (supra) and further the illegality is that the disciplinary authority has not sent the matter for the concurrence of the Public Service Commission as required under Rule 15(2) and Rule 16(10) of the Rules of 1958 for imposing major penalty. 19. As regards, the findings of the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority on the charges, the submission of the petitioner is to be considered only to the extent whether the same are beyond the scope of the charges or based on no evidence or perverse for which the reproduction of charge along with statement of allegations, findings and conclusion of enquiry officer and findings of the disciplinary authority is to be considered with reference to each charge. 20. A bare perusal of charge No. 1 along with statement of allegations would reveal that the same relates to ignoring the rules while discharging the Government duties in the matter of allotment of Bundhs and thereby misused the office. A further perusal of statement of allegations would reveal that allegation is of allotment of lesser fish farmers without determining the water area of the allotted Bundh's. Another part of the allegations is that the Bundh Chandrana was of 82 hectares, which has been allotted to eight fish farmers. In the enquiry, it has not been established that Bundh Chandrana was of 80 hectares whereas on record of the enquiry, measurement was of 8 hectares and further it is also on record that in fact, nine fish farmers (Ex.D-10) who are having the area of less than one hectare, therefore, the enquiry officer has not given any finding on the main allegation of not following the prescribed procedure of allotting one hectare to each fish farmer. The statement of allegation is totally vague as no date of allotment has been mentioned. The statement of allegation is totally vague as no date of allotment has been mentioned. It has also come on record of the enquiry that initial allotments were made by the predecessor of the petitioner prior to 5.7.1990 i.e. the date of joining of the petitioner and the petitioner has extended the period as per letter of the Director dated 12.7.1994, therefore, no further enquiry was required to be held with regard to assessment of water area by treating the order of extension as original allotment. For extension of the period, no assessment of the water area is required. It appears that when the main allegation of not following the prescribed procedure of allotment of one hectare to each fish farmer was not established and the letter of the Director dated 12.7.1994 for extension of period was also placed on record then the entire charge fall on the ground, but the enquiry officer start finding fault by treating the order of extension of the period as original allotment for which assessment of water area was required. Thus the enquiry officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in enlarging the scope of charge and statement of allegations and the finding on the charge No. 1 is liable to be quashed. 21. Charge No. 2 relates to allotment of larger water area of Bundh to lesser fish farmers, as a result of which, there was a loss of revenue. In the statement of allegations also, the loss has been shown to be Rs. 2.5 lacs on account of making allotment from August 1991 to January 1993 of six hectare water area of three fish farmers. The said loss has not been proved, but still the finding of the enquiry officer is based on conjecture and surmises that in case the water area was to be allotted to other fish farmers in 1991 then the Government would have earned more revenue. There is no allegation that the Government would have earned more revenue, if more allotments were made in 1991. Thus, the said finding is clearly beyond the scope of the charge and the same is liable to be quashed. 22. A perusal of charge No. 3 would reveal that the same relates to ignoring the direction of the Government and Directorate in the matter of Bundh allotment, which has resulted in defiance of the directions. Thus, the said finding is clearly beyond the scope of the charge and the same is liable to be quashed. 22. A perusal of charge No. 3 would reveal that the same relates to ignoring the direction of the Government and Directorate in the matter of Bundh allotment, which has resulted in defiance of the directions. A further perusal of statement of allegation No. 3 would reveal that the same relates to assessment of water area by committee and making allotment without assessment and further the same have not been returned back to the department and not returning the Bundh Madhosagar and Bundh Chhaparwada to the department after expiry of the period. The allotments of the year 1986 upto 3.2.1990 referred into statement of allegations were made by predecessor of the petitioner Shri R.S. Choudhary and Shri P.S. Bhandari, but still without examining the record, same have been attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted in his representation and had further been able to establish that there was no procedure for handing over the Bundh from FFDA to the department as both are one part of the same process. The Bundh/reservoir had been taken over by the Chief Accounts Officer in the list of contracts of the department on 2.4.1996 and it included the aforesaid reservoirs in the schedule, therefore, the said part of the charge is wholly baseless. The enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority have not given due weightage to the list of contracts and schedule. The enquiry officer has found proved the said charge that the petitioner has not followed the rules and the direction of the Director of 10% increase on the lease amount of Rs. 20,000. In the statement of allegation, there is no allegation of not increasing the 10% rate on the lease amount of Rs. 20,000/-. It appears that when the enquiry officer has not found any fault in the record of the enquiry then he has gone beyond the charge as well as statement of allegations and gave a finding of not increasing 10% amount on the lease amount of Rs. 20,000/-, which clearly establish his prejudice and pre-determined mind. 20,000/-. It appears that when the enquiry officer has not found any fault in the record of the enquiry then he has gone beyond the charge as well as statement of allegations and gave a finding of not increasing 10% amount on the lease amount of Rs. 20,000/-, which clearly establish his prejudice and pre-determined mind. The petitioner has also given an explanation on the issue that the State Government was being regularly paid by FFDA the increased amount which was received from various allottees after 1994 and in this regard, there had never been any audit objection. The said fact further find support from the letter of the Director dated 6.7.2000 written to the petitioner that regular payment has been received in this regard, therefore, apart from above, the charge is baseless and the same is liable to be quashed. 23. The last fourth charge was relating to give an opportunity to the fish farmer to obtain stay order by not returning the reservoir to the department. The petitioner has submitted reply that after expiry of the period, the reservoir automatically stood returned to the department, but no action was taken by the department and he has been unnecessarily involved in the matter of grant of injunction by the competent court. No stay order was passed by any court with regard to Bundh Chhaparwada and the charge was wholly baseless and further regarding not handing over the Bundh Chhaparwada, the petitioner has also not been held responsible. Further with regard to Bindori Sagar and Bundh Madhosagar, the petitioner has been held guilty on account of the fact that the same could not be included in auction for the reason that Bundhs were not handed over to the department, which gave an opportunity to the fish farmer to obtain stay. He has also submitted that in the matter of grant of stay order by the High Court or trial court, no comment can be made by him. He has also submitted that no court has passed any order/structure against the petitioner and the department, therefore, the Court orders which have been granted in independent manner ought to have been respected by the respondents instead of blaming the petitioner, who was simply discharging his duties. The aforesaid charge is baseless in view of discussion made hereinabove with regard to charge No. 3 relating to handover of Bundhs. The aforesaid charge is baseless in view of discussion made hereinabove with regard to charge No. 3 relating to handover of Bundhs. It is surprising that the department instead of contesting the matter before the Court has levelled the allegations of intentional, indirect help in obtaining the stay order, which is wholly unwarranted and objectionable, but still the petitioner has been held guilty of this charge. Thus, the finding on the charge No. 4 is wholly unwarranted, uncalled for and objectionable, therefore, same is liable to be ignored. 24. The finding of the enquiry officer on charge No. 1 & 3 and part charge No. 2 & 4 is either beyond the scope of the charge or perverse or based on conjecture and surmises, therefore, same are perverse. The findings on each charge given by the disciplinary authority also equally suffer from same illegality as the disciplinary authority instead of examining the representation of the petitioner against the finding recorded by enquiry officer, with reference to the material on record has gone one step further in committing the illegality by holding the petitioner guilty of the part charge No. 2 & 4 of which the petitioner has been exonerated without issuing any notice of disagreement as held by the Supreme Court in case of Punjab National Bank (supra). Thus, the charge sheet dated 23.9.1998, enquiry report dated 9.6.2000, punishment order dated 24.10.2000 and review order dated 22.3.2001 are liable to be quashed. 25. In view of above, the writ petition is allowWrit petition allowed. *******