JUDGMENT Hon'ble VYAS, J.—This writ petition was filed by late Bhawani Shankar Gaur, in which, it is prayed that entire record pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under memorandum dated 26.07.1986 may be called for and the same may be reviewed judicially and charge-sheet itself may be declared unjust and arbitrary and same may be quashed. Further, it is prayed that the order dated 28.08.1989 (Annex.-8) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 09.03.1999 (Annex.-10) passed by the appellate authority may be declared illegal and same may be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. 2. After filing this writ petition in the year 1999, petitioner Bhawani Shanker Gaur died on 11.10.2005 at Chittorgarh. After his death, an application was filed by the legal representatives of late Bhawani Shankar for taking them on record to pursue this case. The application filed by the legal representatives was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2006 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and legal representatives of deceased Bhawani Shanker Gaur were taken on record and, thereafter, amended cause-title was filed which is on record. 3. According to facts of the case, late Bhawani Shanker entered in the government service as Compounder with effect from 01.09.1969. Late Bhawani Shanker was placed under suspension vide order dated 01.02.1980 under the orders of the Director, Medical & Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him. For years together, however, after placing late Bhawani Shanker under suspension, no disciplinary proceedings was initiated. Number of representations were filed by him for revoking his suspension order, so also, to revise his subsistence allowance. 4. The Director, Medical & Health Department served a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short, referred to hereinafter as “the Rules of 1958”) along with statement of allegation. In the charge-sheet issued on 26.07.1986, three allegations were levelled against late Bhawani Shanker Gaur. A detailed reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by late Bhawani Shanker, in which, he denied all the allegations levelled against him and furnished explanation in quite unambiguous terms and explained away his position. The Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 01.10.1986 appointed Dr. P.C. Datta as inquiry authority to make probe with regard to allegations levelled against the petitioner. 5. The Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 01.10.1986 appointed Dr. P.C. Datta as inquiry authority to make probe with regard to allegations levelled against the petitioner. 5. In the inquiry, upon application filed by late Bhawani Shanker, defence nominee was also provided and, thereafter, the inquiry authority conducted the inquiry but in a very vague manner and concluded the same in flagrant manner in 1986. In the inquiry, on 18.06.1987, statements of two departmental witnesses were recorded and, on the same day, statement of Bhawani Shanker was recorded and no further opportunity was given to Bhawani Shanker. 6. Late Bhawani Shanker Gaur received a show-cause notice on 31.05.1989 from respondent No.2 Director, Medical & Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, in which, he was directed to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service being found guilty for misconduct by the inquiry authority. The inquiry report and show-cause notice have been placed on record at Annex.-5. 7. Case of the petitioner is that no finding was given by the inquiry authority that the petitioner is guilty for any misconduct and simply made a recommendation for reinstatement of the petitioner in service and gave the finding that petitioner is liable to be punished for the loss caused due to inadvertence on his part and no misconduct has been proved against him. Upon receiving such inquiry report and show-cause notice, explanation was filed by late Bhawani Shanker and it is specifically stated that he is not at all guilty for misconduct, therefore, he may be exonerated from the charges levelled against him. 8. The Disciplinary Authority, without considering the explanation given by late Bhawani Shanker as well as inquiry report imposed the punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner vide order dated 28.08.1989. It is pleaded that the Disciplinary Authority did not give any finding for the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the memorandum dated 26.07.1986 and passed unreasoned and non-speaking order. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.1989 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 and claimed for setting aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on various grounds including the ground that inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law. So also, the inquiry is in violation of the principle of natural justice because no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner. 9. So also, the inquiry is in violation of the principle of natural justice because no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner. 9. The appeal filed by the original petitioner was not decided by the appellate authority, therefore, in the compelling circumstances, late Bhawani Shanker preferred writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2108/1993, in which, show-cause notice was issued and upon service, respondents did not choose to file any reply to the show-cause notice for years together and, ultimately, the said writ petition came up for hearing on 12.01.1999 and, on that date, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition with direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receiving certified copy of the order. 10. After obtaining the copy of the judgment, the original petitioner immediately approached the respondents for disposal of his appeal. Thereafter, the appellate authority directed the petitioner Bhawani Shanker to remain present for personal hearing. The appellate authority although gave opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but only for two minutes and the same was nothing but empty formality and, finally, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by late Bhawani Shanker. Both the order passed by the respondents are under challenge in this writ petition. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that order passed by the Disciplinary Authority deserves to be quashed only on the ground that order is totally unreasoned and non-speaking order. Likewise, order of the appellate authority is also of the same nature because the appellate authority did not apply its mind whether the Disciplinary Authority has given finding on each and every charge and whether the inquiry authority conducted the inquiry in accordance with law or not. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority has failed to appreciate that in fact no valid disciplinary proceedings was conducted against the petitioner. So also, no misconduct has been proved before the inquiry authority against the petitioner. Therefore, the order of appellate authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority deserves to be quashed. 12. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority has failed to appreciate that in fact no valid disciplinary proceedings was conducted against the petitioner. So also, no misconduct has been proved before the inquiry authority against the petitioner. Therefore, the order of appellate authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority deserves to be quashed. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that not only the Disciplinary Authority but appellate authority has completely ignored the finding of the inquiry officer and committed an error apparent on the face of record while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee's case reported in 1990(4) SCC 594 both the orders impugned in this writ petition deserve to be quashed. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order of the Disciplinary Authority deserves to be quashed on yet another ground that the order is non-speaking and unreasoned order because the Disciplinary Authority was required to give specific finding on each and every allegation after due application of mind which has not been done, therefore, it can be said that there was no good and sufficient reason for imposing such harsh punishment against the petitioner; but, contrary to the facts and in flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice, the Disciplinary Authority passed order which is totally untenable in law. 14. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 1980 late Bhawani Shanker Gaur was placed under suspension and for 19 years he waited for final conclusion of the proceedings initiated against him and twice approached this Court for redressal of his grievance. In this view of the matter, it is fit case, in which, while quashing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 28.08.1989 and order passed by the appellate authority on 09.03.1999, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and exemplary cost may be imposed against the respondents. 15. In this view of the matter, it is fit case, in which, while quashing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 28.08.1989 and order passed by the appellate authority on 09.03.1999, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and exemplary cost may be imposed against the respondents. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently argued that in this case the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed punishment of dismissal from service because the allegation against late Bhawani Shanker Gaur was for misappropriation of money, in which, regular inquiry was conducted and, in the inquiry, it was found that recovery of government money is to be made from late Bhawani Shanker Gaur. It was advised by the inquiry officer that instead of placing Bhawani Shanker Gaur under suspension, he may be reinstated and recovery of government money may be made from him. It was felt necessary by the Disciplinary Authority to take serious view, therefore, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by way of show cause notice, impugned punishment order dated 28.08.1989 was passed, in which, there is no illegality. Similarly, the order of the appellate authority is based upon sound reasons and as such no case is made out for interference. 16. Learned Government counsel, during the course of arguments on 04.09.2008, stated that FIR was also filed against the petitioner for misappropriate of money. Upon said argument, the Deputy Government Counsel was given an opportunity to ascertain the factual aspect of the matter with regard to the outcome of the criminal proceedings. During the course of arguments, it is submitted that in the FIR filed against late Bhawani Shanker Gaur the police filed FR but, later on, further investigation was ordered but outcome is not known. Therefore, it is submitted that in this case no interference is warranted because late Bhawani Shanker committed gross misconduct of misappropriation of money and as such this writ petition may be dismissed. 17. After hearing both the parties and considering entire record of the case, it is obvious that there was complete lethargic attitude of the respondents in conducting the inquiry against late Bhawani Shanker Gaur. Admittedly, Bhawani Shanker Gaur who was working on the post of compounder was placed under suspension on 01.02.1980 and, after placing him under suspension, in the year 1986 charge-sheet was served vide memorandum dated 26.07.1986. Admittedly, Bhawani Shanker Gaur who was working on the post of compounder was placed under suspension on 01.02.1980 and, after placing him under suspension, in the year 1986 charge-sheet was served vide memorandum dated 26.07.1986. Thereafter, inquiry was commenced and it is worthwhile to observe that in the inquiry no reasonable opportunity for defence was given to the delinquent and the inquiry authority gave finding that upon inspection of the record it is revealed that delinquent Bhawani Shanker is responsible for the mistake committed by him, therefore, recovery of money may be made from him. Further, it is observed by the inquiry authority that matter is very old, therefore, the delinquent may be reinstated in service and recovery of money may be made from his salary. It is nowhere stated that Bhawani Shanker is found guilty for misappropriation of money. The finding of the inquiry authority is as under : ^^Jh Hkokuh 'kadj xkSM+ ,oa mlds lykgdkj Jh vkseizdk'k lq=dkj us fnukad 19-1-88 dks ;g fy[kdj fn;k gS fd tks olwyh ml ij fudyrh gS mls og nsus dks rS;kj gS] Jh Hkokuh 'kadj xkSM+ fuyfEcr djus ls iwoZ :i;s 8]100@& olwy fd;s tk pqds gSA olwyh cUn gks xbZ gSA mä deZpkjh dks fuyfEcr ugha fd;k tkrk rks gks ldrk gS vc rd jde olwy gks xbZ gksrh] D;ksafd ekeyk cgqr iqjkuk o yfEcr dky dk gks x;k gS ,oa iqfyl dh dk;Zokgh py jgh gS ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa esjh jk; esa ;g mfpr gksxk fd iqfyl ,oa U;k;ky; ds }kjk fd;s tkus okys fu.kZ; ds v/khu fQygky cgky dj fn;k tkosa rkfd mlls olwyh dh tkus okyh jkf'k olwyh dh tk ldsA olwyh dh jde dks vads{k.k ny }kjk fjdesaM dh xbz gS :i;s 29552-51 ek= ftlesa ls Jh xkSM+ us 8]100@& tek djk;s tk pqds gSa eSllZ gjh'k dqfVj m|ksx ls 12 isfV;ksa ds :i;s 706-20 iSls ek= rFkk flykbZ e'khu ds :i;s 197-95 bl izdkj dqy 904-15 ek= gksrs gSa rFkk olwyh ;ksX; jde vc 29]552-51 esa ls 9004-15 de djds 20]548-36 'ks"k jgrs gSaA Jh Hkokuh 'kadj xkSM+ ds c;ku layXu gSA** 18. I have perused the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 28.08.1989 at Annex-8. I have perused the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 28.08.1989 at Annex-8. Upon perusal of said order, it is abundantly clear that not a single ground taken by late Bhawani Shanker was considered nor any finding was given by the Disciplinary Authority, what to say about disagreement with the conclusion reached by the inquiry authority, while inflicting the penalty against the original petitioner. Therefore, in my opinion, the order of dismissal is totally non-speaking order which is against basic principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee's case, reported in 1990 (4) SCC 594 , in which, the apex Court laid down as follows : “35. The decisions of this Court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration. The other considerations which have also weighed with the Court in taking this view are that the requirement of recording reasons would (i) guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimise chances of arbitrariness in decision-making. In this regard a distinction has been drawn between ordinary courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions on the ground that a Judge is trained to look at things objectively uninfluenced by considerations of policy or expediency whereas an executive officer generally looks at things from the standpoint of policy and expediency. 36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge. 39. The object underlying the rules of natural justice “is to prevent miscarriage of justice” and secure “fair play in action”. As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that effect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. And the Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject-matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public interest derlying such a provision would outweigh the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case. 40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision.” 19. Similarly, the appellate authority has also not applied its mind and in very cryptic manner decided the appeal filed by late Bhawani Shanker Gaur and that, too, is totally unreasoned and without even considering the grounds taken by late Bhawani Shanker Gaur in his appeal. 20. After perusing the entire record of the case and considering the grounds taken by both petitioner and respondents, I am of the opinion that every statutory authority is required to follow the procedure laid down in the rules for taking disciplinary action against the delinquent. No penal order can be passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing. Further, if the inquiry officer has not given any adverse finding against the delinquent, so also, did not give any finding that the charges are proved, then, it is not open for the Disciplinary Authority to take different view without assigning any reasons or without communicating the reasons for disagreement. Further, if the inquiry officer has not given any adverse finding against the delinquent, so also, did not give any finding that the charges are proved, then, it is not open for the Disciplinary Authority to take different view without assigning any reasons or without communicating the reasons for disagreement. In this case, upon perusal of the report of the inquiry officer, it is abundantly clear that there is no finding that prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the petitioner. On the contrary, in the opinion of the inquiry officer, due to mistake committed by the original petitioner certain amount is required to be recovered from him and inquiry officer recommended for reinstatement of late Bhawani Shanker Gaur, then, it was the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to act upon the report of the inquiry officer; but, contrary to the finding of the inquiry officer, without assigning any reasons, show-cause notice was given to original petitioner Bhawani Shanker Gaur and, without considering his grounds, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order for his dismissal from service which is totally in violation of Article 21 and principles of natural justice. Therefore, both the orders impugned passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as appellate authority are not sustainable in law. 21. It is also worthwhile to observe here that if any money is required to be recovered, for which, as per the inquiry report, an error was committed by learned Bhawani Shanker Gaur that can be recovered from his service benefits but the order of termination is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is very unfortunate that in whole of his life since 1980 until his death late Bhawani Shanker Gaur suffered mental agony, first, when his matter was not decided for near about 19 years; and, thereafter, when he preferred writ petition before this Court in 1999, after waiting for six years ultimately he died; and, as per the inquiry report, there is no finding of the inquiry authority that delinquent Bhawani Shanker is guilty for any misconduct. More so, it is observed that the error was committed by late Bhawani Shanker, for which, recovery may be made from his salary. 22. Further, in the FIR filed against him, the outcome of the police inquiry is required to be awaited. More so, it is observed that the error was committed by late Bhawani Shanker, for which, recovery may be made from his salary. 22. Further, in the FIR filed against him, the outcome of the police inquiry is required to be awaited. In my opinion, now, when police filed the FR and, till today, no outcome of even re-investigation is on record inspite of opportunity having been granted to the counsel for the State, then, it cannot be said that late Bhawani Shanker was held responsible in the criminal pro-ceedings in the said FIR. Learned Government Counsel accepts that once FR was given in the matter and, later on, what happened it is not known to him. 23. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders Annex.-8 dated 28.08.1989 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Annex.-10 dated 09.03.1999 passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed. Late Bhawani Shanker Gaur shall be treated to have been in service until attaining the age of superannuation with all consequential benefits right from the date Bhawani Shanker Gaur was placed under suspension on 01.02.1980, to which, his legal representatives are held to be entitled to receive. His retiral benefits from the date of superannuation with entire arrears shall also be paid to his widow – LR No.1 Smt. Kela Devi Gaur, r/o Chhoti Sadari (Chittorgarh) within a period of three months from the date of filing certified copy of this order.