JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.1.2003 (Annex.8), by which, he was visited with a penalty of 'censure', which further resulted in not releasing his selection scale for one year when it became due. 3. The petitioner is a Lower Division Clerk (in short LDC) and he was entrusted with the duty of carrying certain articles from Principal Seat at Jodhpur to Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. Out of the 16 items, 15 items were delivered and one packet (containing a pair of goggles & telephone diary) was not delivered, which according to the petitioner was stolen during the transit and the act had been brought to the notice of the officer to whom the packets were to be delivered on reaching Jaipur on 12.9.2001. The petitioner left for Jaipur from Jodhpur by bus i9 the night of 11.9.2001 and as per the advise, he also lodged an FIR of theft with the police of the lost packet, which according to the memorandum of charge-sheet contained a pair of goggles and a telephone diary. For this loss, an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short CCA Rules) was conducted and finding that the lodging of the FIR has not resulted in any recovery and getting assurance from the delinquent employee that he would be careful in future, punishment of censure was imposed. 4. In the order of punishment, no reference has been given to the misconduct for which he is being punished. Since the enquiry was held under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, it was urged that the finding of guilt has been 1 recorded separately. Surprisingly in that also, no finding of proved misconduct has been recorded. The finding recorded in the order is : "I have considered the submissions made by the delinquent official and carefully examined the material available on the record. In view of the allegations levelled against the delinquent official, the reply submitted by him, the material available on record, the delinquent official's praying for mercy assuring not to commit such mistake in future, It would be just and proper to take a lenient view in the matter for imposing a penalty and as such, I am of the view that the ends of justice would meet, if a penalty of Censure is imposed on him." 5. It feels one guessing that for what misconduct the delinquent has been held guilty for theft or for the reason that notwithstanding being careful the packet having been stolen by a more efficient thief. 6. The reading of the whole order gives an impression that the enquiry was merely conducted to punish him for the loss of packet in transit rather than finding whether the loss was caused on account of his negligence or was the incident of offence committed by somebody, which could have happened with anyone. 7. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that without any finding of misconduct in a clear manner, the emphasis on award of punishment-more or less-betrays that the decision of punishment has already been taken before enquiry and the matter as only left to be decided about the measure of punishment, such an approach of holding of departmental enquiry cannot be considered to be a fair and valid procedure. No finding has been recorded that the delinquent was negligent in discharge of his duties or had been not vigilant enough which a man of ordinary prudence is expected to be during transit. 8. In the result, we are satisfied that the impugned order of punishment as affirmed by the Committee cannot be sustain on the basis of the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the same is quashed. Consequently the delayed release of selection grade on completion of nine years of service was also not justified and the same is directed to be released with effect from the date i.e. 23rd June, 2002 when it became due, but has been released subsequently one year later.Accordingly the petition success. No order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******