JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, a Class IV employee in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Ghatol, District Banswara was served with a memor um dated 13.8.2003 as per Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958' hereinafter) with a statement of charge alleging therein as under:- " vkjksi la[;k&1 %& vkius fnukad 5-5-03 ls 20-5-03rd U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( o0[k0 ) ,oa vij U;kf;d eft0] laxfj;k esa p0Js0 deZpkjh ds in ij rSukr jgrs gq, ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dh fcuk vuqefr fcuk vodka'k Lohd'r djok;s LoSPNk ls vius drZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgsA bl izdkj vkius drZO; esa ?kksj ykijokgh o vuq'kklughurk dhA vkjksi la[;k 2 %& vkius U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( d0[k0 ) ,oa U;kf;d eft0] izFke oxZ] ihyhcaxk ,oa U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( o0[k0 ) ,oa vij eq[; U;kf;d eft0] laxfj;k esa p0Js0 deZpkjh ds in ij jgrs gq;s o"kZ 2002&03 esa ihBklhu vf/kdkfj;ksa ds uke ls 'kgj ds fofHkUu nqdkunkjksa ls lkeku ysdj vf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa U;k;ky;ksa dh Nfo dks vk|kr igqapk;k vkSj deZpkjh gksrs gq;s ?kksj vuq'kklughurk o Hkz"V vkpj.k fd;kA " 2. It is pertinent to note that the memorandum aforesaid was issued by the enquiry officer and not by the disciplinary authority, meaning thereby an enquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority even prior to taking decision to hold a regular enquiry as per provisions of Rule 16(5) of the Rules of 1958. 3. Be that as it may, an explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 7.10.2003 and he denied the allegations. The enquiry officer after holding necessary enquiry submitted his report to District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh on 7.3.2006. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty for allegation No.1, however, exonerated him from the allegation No.2. The District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh remitted the report of enquiry to Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Ghatol, District Banswara to pass an appropriate order of punishment on basis of enquiry report. 4. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty for allegation No.1, however, exonerated him from the allegation No.2. The District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh remitted the report of enquiry to Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Ghatol, District Banswara to pass an appropriate order of punishment on basis of enquiry report. 4. While forwarding the enquiry report to Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)- cum-Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Ghatol, the note made by the District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh reads as follow:- dk;kZy; ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] guqekux<+ dzekad %& 4177 fnukad & 5-10-2006 tkap vf/kdkjh Jh jfoUnz dqekj eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~sV] guqekux<+ us Jh txnh'k panz p0Js0d0 orZeku esa ckalokM+k U;k; {ks= ds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap vUrxZr fu;e 16 lh0lh0,0 dh tkap fjiksVZ bl dk;kZy; esa izsf"kr dh ftls vuqeksfnr dj flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( d0[k0 ) ,oa U;kf;d eftLV~sV] ?kkVksy ftyk ckalokM+k dks izsf"kr dj ys[k gS fd tkap fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij mfpr n.Mkns'k ikfjr dj lwpuk bl dk;kZy; dks izsf"kr djsaA ,l0Mh0 5-10-2006 ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k guqekux<+ 5. After receiving the enquiry report, Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)- cum-Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Ghatol passed an office order dated 27.2.2007 and imposed a penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner. The order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Ghatol reads as follow:- " Jheku ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k egksn;] guqekux<+ ds xksiuh; iathd'r i= dzekad 4177 fnukad 5-10-2006 ds }kjk izsf"kr o vuqeksfnr] tkap vf/kdkjh Jheku~ eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~sV] egksn;] guqekux<+ }kjk vipkjh deZpkjh Jh txnh'k izlkn p0Js0d0 gky flfoy tt ( d0[k0 ) ,oa U;kf;d eftLVs~V izFke oxZ] U;k;ky; ?kkVksy ftyk ckalokM+k ds fo:) fu;e&16 jktLFkku flfoy lsok ( oxhZj.k] fu;a=.k o vihy ) fu;e&1958 ds vUrxZr dh xbZ foHkkxh; tkap fjiksVZ fnukad 7-3-2006 esa vipkjh deZpkjh ds fo:) izekf.kr ik;s x;s vfHk;ksx ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 27-2-2007 dks bl laca/k esa ikfjr n.Mkns'k vknsf'kdk ds vuqlj.k esa vipkjh deZpkjh Jh txnh'k izlkn p0Js0d0 dks jktLFkku flfoy lsok ( oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k o vihy ) fu;e] 1958 ds fu;e 14 ds mi[k.M&6 esa of.kZrkuqlkj rRdky izHkko ls lsok ls eqDr fjewoy fd;k tkrk gSA jhMj dk;kZy; gktk bl vkns'k ds laca/k esa vko';d bUnzktkr lacaf/kr deZpkjh ds lsok jksy] O;fDrxr] iaftdk] LFkkiuk vfHkys[k oxSjg esa djsA " 6. The order dated 27.2.2007 was passed in compliance of some order-sheet drawn on 27.2.2007 itself. The order dated 27.2.2007 was passed in compliance of some order-sheet drawn on 27.2.2007 itself. This Court during the course of hearing instructed learned counsel for the respondents to call for the order-sheet aforesaid and also the entire record of enquiry. In pursuant thereto, the same is made available for perusal of the Court. The order-sheet dated 27.2.2007, reference of which is given in the order dated 27.2.2007 (Annex.-P/18) reads as follow : "27.2.2007:- " 27-2-2007%& vipkjh deZpkjh Jh txnh'k izlkn p0Js0d0 }kjk fnukad 19-2-2007 dks izLrqr vH;kosnu@izfrosnu dk voyksdu fd;k x;k rFkk ml ij lko/kkuhiwoZd fopkj fd;k x;kA vipkjh deZpkjh ds fo:) Jheku~ eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~sV egksn;] guqekux<+ }kjk dh xbZA foHkkxh; tkap fjiksVZ dk Hkh voyksdu fd;k x;kA mDr ikap fjiksVZ ds voyksduksijkUr ge iw.kZr;k larq"V gSa fd mDr foHkkxh; tkap esa vipkjh deZpkjh Jh txnh'k izlkn dks izfrj{kk o lquokbZ dk iw.kZ volj nsrs gq, leLr uSlfxZd U;k; ds fu;eksa o fl)kUrksa dk ikyu fd;k x;k] mlls Hkh ge iw.kZr;k lger gSa vkSj gekjh jk; esa vipkjh deZpkjh Jh txnh'k izlkn }kjk fd;s x;s vH;kosnu esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ lkj ugha gS] vr% vipkjh deZpkjh Jh txnh'k izlkn] p0Js0d0 }kjk izLrqr vH;kosnu fujLr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vipkjh deZpkjh ds fo:) iz.kkfer vfHk;ksx dh xEHkhjrk vkSj izd'fr ds n'f"Vxr mlds fo:) jktLFkku flfoy lsok ( oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k o vihy fu;e ) ] 1958 ds fu;e 14 ds mi[k.M&6 ds vUrxZr rRdky izHkko ls lsok ls gVk;s tkus ( fjewoy ) dk 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA vr% bl lEcU/k esa i'Fkd~ ls dk;kZy; vkns'k tkjh gksdj ,d izfr vipkjh Jh txnh'k izlkn p0Js0d0 dks nh tkos rFkk ,d izfr vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh Jheku~ ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k egksn;] guqekux<+ dks muds xksiuh; i= dzekad 4177 fnukad 5-10-2006 dh ikyuk esa izsf"kr dh tkos rFkk ,d izfr Jheku~ ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k egksn;] ckalokM+k dks Hkh lwpukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosA " 7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.2.2007, this petition for writ is preferred. 8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.2.2007, this petition for writ is preferred. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire process of enquiry deserves to be quashed being conducted in violation of principle of natural justice and reasonable opportunity on following counts:- i- The enquiry officer relied upon certain statements recorded during the course of preliminary enquiry behind the back of the delinquent; ii- No opportunity was accorded to the delinquent to cross-examine the officer, who conducted the preliminary enquiry; iii- The order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum- Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Ghatol is absolutely an unreasoned and non-speaking order. The findings given are not at all supported by any reason; iv- An order imposing penalty is required to be passed only after considering entire record of the enquiry including the enquiry report, but in the instant matter, the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Ghatol was having only enquiry report with him as no record of enquiry was remitted to him by the District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh; and v- The penalty imposed is disproportionate to the delinquency established. 9. While meeting with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is urged by learned counsel for the respondents that a regular enquiry was conducted by a competent judicial officer, thus, no interference should be made by this Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the conduct of the petitioner while discharging his duties as Class IV employee was highly deplorable, therefore, no sympathy should be extended towards him. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parities. True it is, in the instant matter the enquiry was conducted by judicial officer and the charge against the petitioner is also a serious one, but merely on that count judicial review of the impugned actions cannot be denied. This Court is required to protect fundamental and statutory rights of a person and an employee of judiciary cannot be denied for such judicial review merely on the count that some judicial officer has conducted enquiry against him. 11. In the instant matter, the illegalities in entire process of disciplinary action are in whole some. It is really strange that a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was issued by the enquiry officer instead of disciplinary authority. 11. In the instant matter, the illegalities in entire process of disciplinary action are in whole some. It is really strange that a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was issued by the enquiry officer instead of disciplinary authority. This fact clearly establishes that a decision to hold enquiry was taken even prior to seeking an explanation from the delinquent as required under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1958. The appointment of enquiry officer even prior to seeking explanation as per Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1958, clearly establishes the violation of Rule 16(3) of the Rules of 1958 also, which prescribes that, "The Government servant shall, for the purpose of preparing his defence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify provided that such permission may be refused if, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the public interest to allow him access thereto." 12. It also establishes the violation of Rule 16(4) also, according to that, the disciplinary authority is required to consider the explanation submitted by a delinquent employee before instituting regular enquiry by appointing an enquiring authority. No explanation is available with learned counsel for the respondents as to how a memorandum under Rule 16 could have been issued by the enquiry officer. The violation of the mandatory provisions of the Rules of 1958, as a matter of fact, makes the entire enquiry bad from inception. 13. From perusal of the enquiry report, it also reveals that the preliminary enquiry in the matter was conducted by Shri Sanjeev Mogha, Additional Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate and while doing so, he verified the facts from certain persons. Shri Sanjeev Mogha appeared before the enquiry officer as PW-1. He verified the contents of preliminary enquiry report and as such, that report was rightly accepted in evidence by the enquiry officer. However, the contents of the report of preliminary enquiry could have not been accepted ipso facto. The facts referred in the enquiry report are based on statement of certain other persons those persons were not before the enquiry officers and the petitioner too was not having any opportunity to cross-examine those persons. However, the contents of the report of preliminary enquiry could have not been accepted ipso facto. The facts referred in the enquiry report are based on statement of certain other persons those persons were not before the enquiry officers and the petitioner too was not having any opportunity to cross-examine those persons. As such, the reliance upon the statements of the persons recorded during the course of preliminary enquiry, but not produced in the regular enquiry and were not subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner adversely effects the right of the petitioner to defend himself. In these circumstances, I also found force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry officer gave finding against the petitioner by relying upon the statements of the persons who were not subjected to cross-examination by the delinquent employee. 14. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Ghatol imposing penalty of removal is bad being a non-speaking and unreasoned order and also for the reason that the same was passed without perusing the record of the enquiry too is sustainable. 15. It is well settled that an order, consequent to quasi judicial proceedings should always be a reasoned order. A quasi judicial authority is required to examine the entire evidence available on record objectively and then to subscribe definite finding with reasons. In the present case the order impugned dated 27.2.2007 and the order-sheet dated 27.2.2007 referred in the order impugned nowhere provides any reason to held the petitioner guilty for a misconduct warranting his removal from service. It is quite strange that an order of removal was passed in most casual manner and that is even without referring the charge, the evidence available and the reasons to hold the employee guilty for commission or omission the act that amounts misconduct. As a matter of fact, the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum- Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Ghatol, District Banswara was not in position to record the reasons as required in view of the fact that no record of enquiry was sent to him along with the report of enquiry. 16. Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 prescribes that at the conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of enquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons thereof. 16. Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 prescribes that at the conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of enquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons thereof. As per Rule 16(8) of the Rules of 1958 the record of the enquiry shall include (i)- the charges framed against the Government Servant and the statement of allegations furnished to him sub-rule (2); (ii)- his written statement of defence, if any; (iii)- the oral evidence taken in the course of the inquiry; (iv)- the documentary evidence considered in the course of the enquiry; (v)- the orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiring Authority in regard to the inquiry; and (v)- a report setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefore. 17. As per Sub-Rule (9) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 the Disciplinary Authority is required to consider the entire record of the enquiry, but as already stated above, the record of enquiry was not available with the authority who passed the order dated 27.2.2007. Due to non-availability of the record as prescribed, the authority competent was not having any occasion to examine the same and to arrive at an objective finding. In such circumstance, violation of Rules 16(7), 16(8) and 16(9) of the Rules of 1958 is apparent. 18. Besides whatever stated above, I am also of the view that looking to the delinquency established that is of remaining absent from duty for a period of fifteen days, the penalty of removal is quite harsh, excessive and thus, disproportionate. 19. In view of it, the petition for writ deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The order impugned dated 27.2.2007 imposing a penalty of removal from service is hereby quashed. The petitioner is declared entitled for all consequential benefits including the grant of back-wages continuity in service.Writ Petition Allowed. *******