Judgment Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—The petitioner, a Junior Specialist (Surgery) with the Department of Medical & Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, by this petition for writ is giving challenge to the order dated 24.4.2002 passed by the disciplinary authority, dismissing him from service as a consequent to an inquiry conducted as per Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”). 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner while working at Upgraded Primary Public Health Centre, Abu Road, as Junior Specialist (Surgery), submitted a letter dated 11.6.1996 to the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Sirohi to get his service record and service book completed as he was intending to seek voluntary retirement from service. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by a letter dated 17.7.1996 informed the petitioner that grant of voluntary retirement from service shall not be possible as a disciplinary proceeding was under contemplation against him. Relevant to note here that as a matter of fact no request upto 17.7.1996 was made by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement from service, however, it appears that the respondents considered the letter dated 11.6.1996 as a request made by the petitioner to go on retirement voluntarily. As per the petitioner the then Minister of State for Medical & Health visited Upgraded Primary Public Health Centre, Abu Road on 20.6.1996 and made an open announcement for transfer of the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly submitted a representation to the Minister concerned pointing out that on 20.6.1996 he was on leave and as such whatever reason there was to provoke the Minister to make an open announcement regarding transfer was unwarranted. On the same day the petitioner also moved an application seeking voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 31.10.1996 which was forwarded to the Director, Family Welfare on 3.7.1996. Though the application of the petitioner relating to voluntary retirement from service was pending consideration, he was transferred from Abu Road to Makrana under an order dated 26.6.1996. A challenge was given to the order of transfer by way of filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.2155/1996, wherein by an order dated 23.7.1996 this Court stayed the transfer. Though the application of the petitioner relating to voluntary retirement from service was pending consideration, he was transferred from Abu Road to Makrana under an order dated 26.6.1996. A challenge was given to the order of transfer by way of filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.2155/1996, wherein by an order dated 23.7.1996 this Court stayed the transfer. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Medical & Health Services then passed an order dated 31.8.1996/6.9.1996 keeping the petitioner awaiting posting orders, however, this Court in SBCivil Writ Petition No.3066/1996 stayed effect and operation of the order aforesaid too. Despite interim orders referred above an another order dated 20.9.1996 was passed by the Government of Rajasthan transferring the petitioner to Sadulpur, District Churu. By way of filing SBCivil Writ Petition No.3500/1996, the petitioner also assailed validity of the order dated 20.9.1996 and therein the order aforesaid too was stayed. 3. With the facts surrounding as above, the petitioner on 31.10.1996, by considering himself incharge of the Upgraded Primary Public Health Centre, Abu Road, passed an order dated 31.10.1996 relieving himself from service voluntarily, however, the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Sirohi cancelled the order dated 31.10.1996. Accordingly the petitioner joined back the duties with protest on 9.11.1996. An another order dated 29.11.1996 was passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Medical & Health Services (Group-II), placing the petitioner under suspension. By the same order the headquarter of the petitioner was changed from Abu Road to Jodhpur and that was again challenged by the petitioner by way of filing SBCivil Writ Petition No.328/1997, wherein too an interim order was passed staying operation and effect of order placing the petitioner under suspension. Despite the interim order aforesaid, the petitioner was not taken on duty for a period of about five months. As per the petitioner even while making compliance of the interim directions given by this Court, he was not permitted to join duties at Abu Road but was instructed to report in the office of the Director, Medical & Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Tehsildar, Abu Road then issued a notice dated 1.6.1998 directing the petitioner to vacate the government accommodation as a consequent of transfer from Abu Road. The Tehsildar, Abu Road then issued a notice dated 1.6.1998 directing the petitioner to vacate the government accommodation as a consequent of transfer from Abu Road. The petitioner by way of filing another Writ Petition (SBCWPNo.1968/1998) challenged the notice dated 1.6.1998 and operation and effect of that notice too was stayed by this Court. A Writ Petition (SBCWPNo.3066/1996) was also filed by the petitioner seeking direction for the respondents to treat him retired voluntarily w.e.f. 31.10.1996. 4. The petitioner, then was served with a memorandum as per provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 dated 6.5.1997 with following allegations:- <span class=”Hfont”> ^^izFke vkjksi % ;g fd mä Mk- vkj- ih- xkSM] dfu"B fo'ks"kK ¼'kY;½ rRdkyhu lh ,p lh vkcwjksM ¼fuyafcr½ futh uflZax gkse esa izsfDVl djrs gS] tks vuq'kklughurk gSA tSlk fd vkjksi fooj.k i= esa of.kZr gSA f}rh; vkjksi % ;g fd mä Mk- vkj-ih- xkSM+] dfu"B fo'ks"kK ¼'kY;½ ¼fuyafcr½ izHkkjh u gksrs gq, Hkh Lo;a izHkkjh cudj vius LoSfPNd lsok fuo`fÙk ,oa dk;Zeqfä ds vkns'k tkjh djus ds mÙkjnk;h gS ,oa mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk dh gS tSlk fd vkjksi fooj.k i= esa of.kZr gSA r`rh; vkjksi % ;g fd Mk- vkj-ih- xkSM+ d-fo- ¼'kY;½ }kjk vfu;fer ,oa vukf/k—r :i ls >wB nLrkost /kks[kk?kM+h djus gsrq cuk;s gS ,oa mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk dh gSA tSlk fd vkjksi fooj.k i= esa of.kZr gSA prqFkZ vkjksi % ;g fd mä Mk- xkSM+ fofHkUu fnolksa ij fcuk vodk'k Loh—r djok;s ,oa LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr jgs gSA tSlk fd vkjksi fooj.k i= esa of.kZr gSA** 5. The petitioner denied the charges, however, the Government considered it appropriate to hold regular inquiry in the matter, thus, by an order dated 4.9.1997 the Additional Commissioner (Departmental Inquiries), Jaipur was appointed as inquiry officer. From perusal of original record of the inquiry, it reveals that on 3.12.1997 the Inquiry Officer ordered to proceed with the inquiry exparte against the petitioner and on 24.2.1998, after recording statements of Dr. K.L. Bafna, the inquiry officer reserved the matter to draw his report. On 4.5.1998 the report of inquiry was submitted to the disciplinary authority and a copy of that was served upon the petitioner under a latter dated 19.5.1998 with instructions to submit his comments regarding findings given by the inquiry officer. K.L. Bafna, the inquiry officer reserved the matter to draw his report. On 4.5.1998 the report of inquiry was submitted to the disciplinary authority and a copy of that was served upon the petitioner under a latter dated 19.5.1998 with instructions to submit his comments regarding findings given by the inquiry officer. The petitioner through a representation dated 29.5.1998 agitated his cause regarding completion of inquiry in violation of principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority after considering all relevant aspects of the matter on 21.12.1998, noted as follows:- “Discussed. There is no proof to show the service of the notice, as such if approved, re-enquiry be made in this case. In case of approval Additional Commissioner-I be appointed also.” 6. On receiving necessary approval as per the note aforesaid, entire record of the inquiry was remitted to the inquiry officer for holding the inquiry afresh. 7. On 16.4.1999 the inquiry officer recorded preliminary statements of the petitioner and fixed the matter on 19.5.1999 for recording evidence. On 19.5.1999 certain documents were placed on record by the presenting officer and those were marked as Ex.1 to Ex.8. An instruction was also given by the inquiry officer to the prosecution to get the documents denied by the petitioner proved. On 27.5.1999 certain documents were presented by the petitioner in defence, copies whereof were also supplied to the presenting officer. On 4.11.1999 the inquiry officer recorded statements of Shri Bhanwar Singh Deora, the then Chief Medical & Health Officer, Sirohi who also verified certain documents (Ex.9 to Ex.16) filed to substantiate the charges. The documents filed by the petitioner in defence were also exhibited as Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/6. The matter then was fixed for submitting written arguments and after receiving the same the inquiry officer on 17.12.1999 heard the parties and reserved the matter for dictation of the report of inquiry. The inquiry officer remitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 22.3.2000. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (Group-III) under a communication dated 4.4.2000 supplied a copy of inquiry report to the petitioner with instructions to submit his comments thereon. The petitioner accordingly submitted a representation to the competent authority on 18.4.2000. The petitioner in specific terms stated in his representation that the inquiry officer while giving findings against the petitioner for all the charges relied upon certain documents without getting contents of those proved. The petitioner accordingly submitted a representation to the competent authority on 18.4.2000. The petitioner in specific terms stated in his representation that the inquiry officer while giving findings against the petitioner for all the charges relied upon certain documents without getting contents of those proved. The petitioner also stated that the allegation of insubordination itself was illfounded as his request seeking voluntary retirement was never denied. It was made clear by the petitioner that the letter dated 11.6.1996 was not an application seeking voluntary retirement but was only a request to complete his service record and as such the response to the letter aforesaid under communication dated 17.7.1996 was absolutely unwarranted. As per the petitioner his notice for voluntary retirement was dated 26.6.1996 which was forwarded to the Director, Medical & Health Services on 3.7.1996 and the same was received by the Government of Rajasthan on 29.8.1996 and the request under the notice was never declined. The petitioner, therefore, considering himself incharge of Upgraded Primary Public Health Centre, Abu Road, got relieved from service on 31.10.1996. As per the petitioner on 31.10.1996 he was incharge of the Upgraded Primary Public Health Centre, Abu Road, being senior most officer. With regard to allegation No.4 relating to unauthorised absence, the petitioner submitted that necessary applications were sent by him to seek leave and this fact was accepted by the inquiry officer too. It was asserted by the petitioner that leaves for the period in question were also accepted by the competent officer i.e. the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Sirohi. 8. From record it also appears that the disciplinary authority also sought certain comments from the Joint Director, Medical & Health Services, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur regarding petitioner's presence at headquarters during the period he was facing suspension. The Joint Director, by letter dated 14.9.2001 informed to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (Group-III) that during the period of suspension the petitioner never reported at the place his headquarter was fixed and as such no subsistence allowance was also paid to him. 9. The disciplinary authority tentatively decided to impose a penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner, therefore, concurrence was sought from the Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide a letter dated 8.1.2002, which was granted by letter dated 1.3.2002. Accordingly, vide order impugned dated 24.4.2002 a penalty of dismissal from service was inflicted upon the petitioner. 9. The disciplinary authority tentatively decided to impose a penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner, therefore, concurrence was sought from the Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide a letter dated 8.1.2002, which was granted by letter dated 1.3.2002. Accordingly, vide order impugned dated 24.4.2002 a penalty of dismissal from service was inflicted upon the petitioner. The entire discussion made by the disciplinary authority in the order dated 24.4.2002 relating to petitioner's delinquency and guilt that ultimately resulted into his dismissal from service, reads as follows:- ^^Mk- vkj-ih- xkSM+ }kjk izLrqr vH;kosnu dk tkap izfrosnu rFkk izdj.k ds vfHkys[k ds lkFk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k ftldk foospu fuEukuqlkj gS% izLrqr izdj.k Mk- vkj-ih- xkSM+ ds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap ds lEcU/k esa gSA mUgsa fnukad 29-11-1996 dks fuyfEcr dj mudk eq[;ky; la;qä funs'kd] tks/kiqj ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k x;k FkkA mu ij LoSfPNd vuqifLFkfr dk vkjksi Fkk ftls tkap vf/kdkjh us izekf.kr ekuk gSA tkap izfrosnu dk lEcfU/kr vfHkys[k ds lkFk ijh{k.k fd;kA ijh{k.k djus ds i'pkr~ la;qä funs'kd] tks/kiqj ls fVIi.kh pkgh xbZA la;qä funs'kd us fVIi.kh fHktokbZ fd Mk- xkSM+ fuyEcu vof/k esa os fu/kkZfjr eq[;ky; ij mifLFkr ugha ,oa iwoZor~ futh uflZax gkse esa dk;Z djrs jgsA tkap ds nkSjku rRdkyhu eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa Lok- vf/kdkjh] fljksgh us vukf/k—r dj fn;k ftlds fy;s os l{ke ugha FksA mijksä foospu ls Mk- vkj-ih- xkSM+ ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi muds fo:) iw.kZ :i ls fl) gksrs gSA vr% fl) vkjksi dh xaHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq, Mk- vkj-ih- xkSM+ dfu"B fo'ks"kK dks jkT; lsok ls in~P;qr djus dk n.M nsus dk vufUre fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA rRi'pkr~ ekeyk e;p vfHkys[k ds jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx dks muds ijke'kZ gsrq fnukad 8-1-2002 dks fHktok;k x;kA jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx us muds i= la[;k i-1 ¼106½ fotk@2001-02@1235 fnukad 1-3-2002 }kjk vk;ksx dh jk; fHktokbZ ftlesa jkT; ljdkj }kjk izLrkfor n.M ls viuh lgefr O;ä dh xbZA vr% jkT;iky egksn; Mk- vkj-lh- xkSM+] dfu"B fo'ks"kK ¼'kY;½ m-izk-Lok- dsUnz vkcwjksM ftyk fljksgh dks jkT; lsok ls inP;qr djus dk n.M nsus ds ,rn~}kjk vkns'k iznku djrs gSA** 10. As per counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 24.4.2002 is illegal being an out come of the proceedings conducted in contravention of doctrine of reasonable opportunity and principles of natural justice on various counts including that:- (1) the statements of Dr. As per counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 24.4.2002 is illegal being an out come of the proceedings conducted in contravention of doctrine of reasonable opportunity and principles of natural justice on various counts including that:- (1) the statements of Dr. K.L. Bafna were recorded on 24.2.1998 and thereafter on 4.5.1998 the inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority, but the proceedings so conducted were not found valid, as such on 21.12.1998 a decision was taken to hold the inquiry afresh. During the course of inquiry conducted afresh, statements of Dr. K.L. Bafna were never put down, however, the inquiry officer considered and relied upon the statements of Dr. K.L. Bafna recorded on 24.2.1998. Neither copy of the statements deposed by Dr. K.L. Bafna was given to the petitioner nor he was allowed to cross examine aforesaid Dr.Bafna, hence denial of reasonable opportunity for defence is apparent. (2) the inquiry officer while holding the petitioner guilty for the charges levelled against him relied upon the preliminary inquiry report given by the Sub Divisional Officer, Abu Road, however, contents of the aforesaid inquiry report were not at all proved. The Sub Divisional Officer, Abu Road was not even called for to prove the preliminary inquiry report and also the contents made therein; (3) without getting the documents submitted by the prosecution proved, the inquiry officer relied upon those documents and that caused denial of reasonable opportunity for defence; (4) the disciplinary authority sought comments from the Joint Director, Medical & Health Services, Jodhpur while considering record of inquiry. The comments so submitted were relied upon, though the same were not part of the record of inquiry. If the disciplinary authority, for any good reason considered it appropriate to call comments from the Joint Director, then the petitioner should have been apprised with such comments with an opportunity to explain his version and also to cross examine the Joint Director, if required; and (5) the order impugned dated 24.4.2002 is in gross violation of Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958 being not prescribing finding against the charges levelled against the petitioner. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is further bad being lacking reasons for reaching at the conclusion which ultimately resulted in dismissal of the petitioner. 11. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is further bad being lacking reasons for reaching at the conclusion which ultimately resulted in dismissal of the petitioner. 11. Per contra, as per the respondents, the entire inquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. According to the respondents, adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself and he availed the same. As per the respondents, the petitioner himself in most unambiguous terms accepted that he was going to a private hospital for examining patients and, therefore, guilt of the petitioner is established even by admission. It is asserted by counsel for the respondent State that the petitioner knowing it well that on 31.10.1996 he was not incharge of Upgraded Primary Public Health Centre, Abu Road, dared to issue an order to relieve himself from duties by treating himself retired voluntarily from service, as such his conduct is self-speaking and no sympathy deserves to be extended for such an employee. According to counsel for the respondents the petitioner neither demanded for a copy of the statements given by Dr. K.L. Bafna nor he requested to cross examine Dr. K.L. Bafna. By placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 1987 (Suppl.) SCC 582, it is asserted by counsel for the respondents that the need for giving specific reasons for holding the petitioner guilty was not there as the disciplinary authority accepted the reasons and findings given by the inquiry officer. 12. Heard counsel for the parties and examined the record. 13. While pointing out various infirmities in inquiry proceedings and the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is relating to gross violation of principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity. 14. The proceedings against the petitioner were conducted as per provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and sub-rule(9) of Rule aforesaid prescribes that “the disciplinary authority shall, if it is not the inquiring authority, consider the record of inquiry and record its finding on each charge. 14. The proceedings against the petitioner were conducted as per provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and sub-rule(9) of Rule aforesaid prescribes that “the disciplinary authority shall, if it is not the inquiring authority, consider the record of inquiry and record its finding on each charge. The disciplinary authority may while considering the report of the inquiring authority for just and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing remand the case for further/denovo inquiry, in case it has reason to believe that the inquiry already conducted has been laconic in some respect or the other”. The disciplinary authority on being satisfied that the inquiring authority proceeded against the petitioner without effecting service of the notices, held the inquiry proceedings laconic, accordingly, on 21.12.1998 decided to hold re-inquiry. In pursuant to the decision aforesaid process of fresh inquiry started on 16.4.1999 and the inquiry officer examined Dr. Bhanwar Singh Deora as a prosecution witness on 4.11.1999. Shri Bhanwar Singh Deora verified documents Ex.9 to Ex.16, however, the disciplinary authority while giving finding of guilt against the petitioner considered and relied upon the statements of Dr. K.L. Bafna, those were recorded on 24.2.1998. The statements of Dr. K.L. Bafna were recorded in absence of the petitioner and that too without effecting service of the notices, as held by the disciplinary authority on 21.12.1998. On minute examination of the details relating to statements given by Dr. K.L. Bafna, it is apparent that the inquiry officer based his findings on the documents those were verified by Dr. K.L. Bafna. The documents Ex.1 to Ex.8 were verified by Dr. K.L. Bafna whose statements recorded on 24.2.1998 were admittedly not treated as part of the inquiry record. The findings given by the inquiry officer relating to charge No.2 is solely based on the documents verified by Dr. K.L. Bafna and as such it can be definitely said that the inquiry officer while holding the petitioner guilty has taken into consideration documents which were not part of the record of inquiry. As a matter of fact, whatever statements given by Dr. K.L. Bafna and the documents verified by him could not have been taken into consideration by the inquiry officer as those were not part of the inquiry record in view of the disciplinary authority's decision dated 21.12.1998. 15. As a matter of fact, whatever statements given by Dr. K.L. Bafna and the documents verified by him could not have been taken into consideration by the inquiry officer as those were not part of the inquiry record in view of the disciplinary authority's decision dated 21.12.1998. 15. While meeting with the contention aforesaid, it is stated by counsel for the respondents that though the statements of Dr. K.L. Bafna were recorded prior to 16.4.1999 i.e. the date of initiating reinquiry against the petitioner but the consideration of the documents verified by Dr. K.L. Bafna does not make the inquiry proceedings bad as no prejudice was caused to the petitioner's right to defend himself. I am not at all convinced with the submission aforesaid. As already said, the inquiry officer based his findings on the statements of Dr. K.L. Bafna, and the petitioner was having no opportunity to cross examine him or to say anything in rebuttal regarding documents verified by Dr. K.L. Bafna. The right of defence by providing reasonable opportunity is a valuable right and whenever such a right is denied or even injured while considering a case of a civil servant regarding imposition of a major penalty, then the primary assumption is that the same must have caused a prejudice to the rights to defence of a civil servant. Merely by saying that no prejudice is caused, is not sufficient. The employer is required to satisfy the Court that as to how consideration of an evidence which is not part of the inquiry has not effected a right of civil servant for having a reasonable opportunity for defence or even by violation of that the charge levelled stands established. 16. While relying upon sub-rule(9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, it is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that no finding against each and every charge is recorded by the disciplinary authority after considering record of inquiry. The order impugned was passed by the disciplinary authority in most mechanical manner without assigning any reason to hold the petitioner guilty for the allegations of misconduct. As per the respondents, there was no need to pass a speaking and reasoned order by the disciplinary authority holding the petitioner guilty for a misconduct as the order passed by him is nothing but affirmance of the findings given by the inquiry officer. As per the respondents, there was no need to pass a speaking and reasoned order by the disciplinary authority holding the petitioner guilty for a misconduct as the order passed by him is nothing but affirmance of the findings given by the inquiry officer. On examination of order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 24.4.2002, it is clear that as a matter of fact the disciplinary authority did not consider even the inquiry report and the record of inquiry as per requirement of sub-rule(9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and also as per general principles of consideration of record of inquiry by a quasi judicial authority. The disciplinary authority while imposing penalty of dismissal mentioned that the allegation of unauthorised absence was found proved by the inquiry officer and the Joint Director also made a comment regarding absence of the petitioner during the period of suspension. 17. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 casts a statutory obligation upon disciplinary authority to consider entire record of inquiry and also the inquiry report and then to record his finding against each charge. From perusal of the order impugned it is apparent that the disciplinary authority acted in most casual manner and in flagrant contravention of Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958. It does not reveal from reading of the order impugned that any objective consideration of the record of inquiry was made. The petitioner was subjected to an inquiry for four allegations but the disciplinary authority in most vague terms stated that the delinquent employee was found guilty for remaining absent voluntarily and also that an adverse comment was made by the Joint Director. As per sub-rule(9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 the disciplinary authority is under a statutory obligation to give his definite finding against each charge. The statutory requirement aforesaid is not a mere formality but a mandatory need to establish objectivity while considering case of a civil servant whose conduct is under screening. The findings of the disciplinary authority are required to be substantiated with reasons and reasons can be gathered by objective assessment of the inquiry record that includes evidence. If the disciplinary authority has not given findings against each charge, then it reflects that he has not taken into consideration record of the inquiry. The findings of the disciplinary authority are required to be substantiated with reasons and reasons can be gathered by objective assessment of the inquiry record that includes evidence. If the disciplinary authority has not given findings against each charge, then it reflects that he has not taken into consideration record of the inquiry. In the present case, as a matter of fact no finding is recorded by the disciplinary authority against any of the charge levelled against the petitioner. As such the assumption is that record of inquiry was not considered and assessed by the disciplinary authority while imposing a severest penalty i.e. of dismissal. 18. I also found from examination of original record of inquiry that the disciplinary authority on 2.5.2000 sought certain comments from the Chief Medical & Health Officer who sanctioned leave of the petitioner for the period he remained absent for duties. A tentative decision then was taken on 9.10.2001 by disciplinary authority to dismiss the petitioner from service, but at this stage no reason was recorded. The matter was then referred to the Chief Minister as per existing standing orders and the Chief Minister approved tentative punishment, however, resultant is that no finding was recorded by the disciplinary authority at any stage against any of the charge, as required under sub-rule(9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. On pondering of complete record, I no where found sensitive consideration of inquiry record and inquiry report by the disciplinary authority to give definite findings against each and every charge for which the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary action. 19. The argument advanced by counsel for the respondents that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is an order of affirmance and, therefore, no definite finding or reasoning was necessary, is absolutely worthless as a statutory authority cannot be permitted to act contrary to statutory procedure. For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that there would have been no provision as of sub-rule(9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 demanding findings of disciplinary authority against each and every charge, then too the principles of natural justice calls for an speaking and reasoned order by the disciplinary authority in every case where comments are sought from a delinquent employee relating to findings given by the inquiry officer. This Court in S.L. Gupta vs. LIC & Anr., reported in 2005(4) RDD 861 (Raj), while considering the same issue, held as follows:- “In a quasi judicial inquiry if the delinquent is being deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is being available to the disciplinary authority in the matter of reaching his conclusion rules of natural justice would be affected. In view of this position of law the inquiry report wherein an employee is found guilty, is adverse material to the delinquent employee. In the present case also the inquiry report alongwith the notice to show-cause was given to the petitioner as an adverse material and the petitioner was required to meet the same by submitting a reply. The petitioner submitted a reply to the disciplinary authority and raised various objections with regard to denial of opportunity of defence and also with regard to the findings of the Inquiry Officer. As I stated above that in the light of the law laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (supra) the inquiry report is an adverse material. Therefore, the agreements to the findings by the disciplinary authority was tentative. The disciplinary authority after receiving the order of comments by the delinquent employee is always required to reach at its own findings and conclusions. The disciplinary authority is under an obligation to deal with the objections raised by the employee and he is required to prescribe findings and conclusions supported by the reasons. In a case where a copy of the inquiry report is supplied to a delinquent employee with a notice to show-cause with regard to proposed punishment, the principle laid-down in the case of Ram Kumar's case (Supra) cannot be applied. These are not the case of agreement with the findings of Inquiry Officer but in these cases the inquiry report itself has been treated as an adverse material, as such it is all the more necessary for the disciplinary authority to record reasons in support of his findings and conclusions.” 20. In view of the discussion made above, the violation of sub-rule(9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 as well as violation of principles of natural justice in the present case is apparent. 21. In view of the discussion made above, the violation of sub-rule(9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 as well as violation of principles of natural justice in the present case is apparent. 21. An important aspect of the matter is that the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration a report of the preliminary inquiry (Ex.9) conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mount Abut. The report dated 16.6.1996 of the preliminary inquiry was placed on record by the prosecution and existence of that was established by Dr. Bhanwar Singh Deora (PW-2). The allegation No.1 was found established against the petitioner solely on basis of contents of the preliminary inquiry report aforesaid. The Sub Divisional Officer, who conducted the preliminary inquiry and submitted the report dated 16.6.1996, though was desired to be produced as witness in the list of witnesses given by the presenting officer, but during the course of inquiry he never came up for his examination. Shri Bhanwar Singh Deora (PW-2) could have certainly introduced and verified existence of the document i.e. preliminary inquiry report but in no way contents thereof could have been found established merely by proving its existence. The introduction of the document make it a part of record but in no way it establish the truth of what the document contains. Mere placement of a document on record by a valid custodian does not imply truth of the contents made in such document and no such document can be relied upon until a witness having knowledge of the contents is examined with an opportunity to the delinquent person to exercise his right of cross examination to impugn the contents of the document. It is always desirable to see that a competent witness proves a document and also that how that document proves the allegation against delinquent. In the case in hand, Dr. Bhanwar Singh Deora (PW-2) proved existence of the documents but its contents remained unestablished and as such that document in no case could have been used to prove the allegations against the petitioner. The contents made in the report of preliminary inquiry could have been proved only by the inquiry officer who conducted that inquiry. Bhanwar Singh Deora (PW-2) proved existence of the documents but its contents remained unestablished and as such that document in no case could have been used to prove the allegations against the petitioner. The contents made in the report of preliminary inquiry could have been proved only by the inquiry officer who conducted that inquiry. The report of the preliminary inquiry is available on record of inquiry as Ex.9 and from reading thereof it is apparent that the preliminary inquiry officer considered few complaints made against the petitioner and also recorded statements of few people. The entire exercise, being a preliminary inquiry was conducted behind back of the petitioner and as such it was not open for the inquiry officer to rely upon report of preliminary inquiry without getting contents of that proved by examining the preliminary inquiry officer who submitted report dated 16.6.1996 and by affording a chance to the petitioner to cross examine the aforesaid inquiry officer. 22. The disciplinary authority while imposing severest penalty i.e. dismissal upon the petitioner has also taken into consideration comments made by the Joint Director, Medical & Health Services, Jodhpur after conclusion of process of inquiry as per Rule 16 (8) of the Rules of 1958. The comments so given were not at all apprised to the petitioner and, therefore, reliance upon the same by imposing penalty upon the petitioner is also bad. 23. It is also pertinent to note that as per sub-rule (10) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 the entire record of inquiry proceedings and inquiry report alongwith tentative decision of the disciplinary authority to impose penalty of dismissal was remitted to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for seeking advise. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission also under its letter dated 1.3.2002 simply consented for proposed penalty but the requirement of consideration and consultation is conspicuously absent. True it is, consultation with Commission is not a mandatory provision but when a matter is referred to it, adequate and thorough consultation is desirable. The Commission while giving advise in disciplinary matters exercises its constitutional powers as per Article 320 (3)(c) of the Constitution of India and such power must be exercised with all sincerity and caution. In the instant matter, exercise of the power aforesaid appears to be quite casual and formal. 24. The Commission while giving advise in disciplinary matters exercises its constitutional powers as per Article 320 (3)(c) of the Constitution of India and such power must be exercised with all sincerity and caution. In the instant matter, exercise of the power aforesaid appears to be quite casual and formal. 24. In view of whatever said above, the entire inquiry suffers from fundamental infirmities in observing mandatory provisions of the Rules of 1958 that ultimately results in gross violation of doctrine of reasonable opportunity. Such infirmities vitiate entire process that resulted into imposition of a severe penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner. 25. The petition for writ, therefore, deserves acceptance and as such is allowed. The order impugned dated 24.4.2002 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service as a consequent to disciplinary action taken under memorandum dated 6.5.1997 is quashed. The petitioner is declared entitled for receiving all consequential reliefs and benefits flowing as a result of quashing the order dated 6.5.1997.