Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Gulab Chand against the order of his removal from services dated 01.02.1992 (Annexure-23), the order dated 09.06.1993 (Annexure-25) of appellate authority by which his appeal there-against has been dismissed, and the order dated 4.8.1994 (Annex.26) by which his review petition was also dismissed. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in Rajasthan Police Service on 10.08.1979; he was promoted to post of Head Constable on 26.10.1985. He was later on promoted to post of Assistant Sub Inspector on 23.01.1990. Petitioner was then transferred from Jaipur Zone to Bharatpur Zone by order dated 16.10.1990. He was then sent on temporary adjustment from Bharatpur to Sawai Madhopur on 25.10.1990, where he joined on 26.10.1990. 3. A first information report came to be registered against petitioner for alleged incident of rape/outraging modesty of a woman at Sawai Madhopur, with Police Station, Sawai Madhopur, on 20.11.1990 for offence under Section 376 IPC. Petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in aforesaid criminal case by this court vide order dated 27.02.1991. At this stage it is pertinent to note that petitioner was ultimately acquitted in said criminal case by judgment of Court of Sessions, Sawai Madhopur, dated 13.03.1996, because prosecution failed to prove charges against him beyond reasonable doubt. Copy of judgment is on record as Annexure-27. 4. A charge-sheet was served upon petitioner under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'CCA Rules') on 15.04.1991 inter-alia containing two charges. Charge no.1 was that while petitioner was posted at Sawai Madhopur, he misbehaved with one Smt. Nisha Sharma on 20.11.1990 and when she raised hue and cry and a crowd of people assembled, petitioner threatened her of dire consequences and thereby brought bad name to Police Department. His such conduct was unbecoming of a member of police force and he thereby violated Rule 4 of Rajasthan Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1971. Charge no.2 was to effect that petitioner was willfully absent during period of suspension from his Headquarters at Bharatpur for period from 20.11.1990 to 20.01.1991, from 22.01.1991 to 06.02.1991, from 08.02.1991 to 22.02.1991, from 24.02.1991 to 10.03.1991 and 18.03.1991 till issue of charge-sheet. Petitioner filed reply to charge-sheet on 07.05.1991 and denied the charges. Charge no.2 was to effect that petitioner was willfully absent during period of suspension from his Headquarters at Bharatpur for period from 20.11.1990 to 20.01.1991, from 22.01.1991 to 06.02.1991, from 08.02.1991 to 22.02.1991, from 24.02.1991 to 10.03.1991 and 18.03.1991 till issue of charge-sheet. Petitioner filed reply to charge-sheet on 07.05.1991 and denied the charges. In his reply, he raised several issues and contended that very first allegation against petitioner false inasmuch as no such incident of either outraging modesty or committing rape upon Smt. Nisha Sharma took place. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter. In any case, charge of commission of offence against him is not under Section 376 IPC but it was under Section 354 IPC, however he denied to have committed any such offence. Actual dispute was about land of a public trust. Sawai Madhopur city happens to be his in-laws' place. His brother-in-law was a trustee of one trust. Father-in-law of complainant Smt. Nisha Sharma had unauthorisedly stored fodder on the land of said trust, which was opposed by petitioner's brother-in-law Ramesh Chand Pansari. There were groups in the trust and one group was supporting father-in-law of complainant and at instance of opposite group false case was registered against his brother-in-law Ramesh Chand Pansari. However, the neighbours did not support the false case. On charge no.2 petitioner submitted that since he was under suspension therefore he was not required to mark his attendance on each and every working day; nevertheless he requested for permission to leave Headquarters and his written request was not entertained and in this regard he made a complaint to superior authorities. Allegation of his willful absence thus also denied saying that it was totally baseless. 5. By order dated 21.05.1991, disciplinary authority appointed enquiry officer. Enquiry officer by letter dated 25.05.1991 called upon petitioner to inspect relevant documents or obtain copies thereof, which related to preliminary investigation. Petitioner vide his application dated 04.06.1991, addressed to disciplinary authority, requested for supply of statements of five witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copy of medical examination report of complainant Smt. Nisha Sharma and chemical examination report of her clothes. Petitioner vide his application dated 04.06.1991, addressed to disciplinary authority, requested for supply of statements of five witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., copy of medical examination report of complainant Smt. Nisha Sharma and chemical examination report of her clothes. Then by his letter dated 04.07.1991 reiterating his earlier demand, petitioner submitted that those documents have not yet been supplied to him whereas by letter dated 11.07.1991 he was required to appear in enquiry proceedings scheduled to take place on 11.07.1991 and witnesses were also summoned. He requested that copies of documents especially statements of those witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. should be supplied at earliest so as to enable him to cross-examine them in enquiry proceedings. Petitioner submitted yet another application to disciplinary authority on 10.07.1991 requested that enquiry officer be changed because he is totally biased against him and the proceedings in the matter are going on in one sided manner. Defence nominee of petitioner Shri Sharafat Ali also vide his application dated 11.07.1991 complained to disciplinary authority about conduct of enquiry officer and stated that enquiry was not being conducted as per procedure contained in Rule 16 of CCA Rules. Disciplinary authority by his letter dated 21.07.1991 directed enquiry officer to allow petitioner to inspect all relevant documents and obtain copies thereof but petitioner again requested disciplinary authority by his application dated 26.07.1991 for change of enquiry officer because he was not following rule of procedure in enquiry proceedings. Petitioner also prayed that he should be paid subsistence allowance without which he was unable to defend himself. Enquiry officer by letter dated 14.08.1991 informed petitioner that he did not present himself in enquiry proceedings although he was informed by letters dated 12.07.1991 and 21.07.1991 to appear before him along-with his defence nominee. Petitioner was informed by this letter dated 14.08.1991 that he should appear along-with his defence nominee in enquiry proceedings on 28.08.1991. This letter was served on petitioner on 28.08.1991 itself, which is evident from endorsement made by petitioner on original notice that he received said communication at 12.00 in noon of the date fixed for enquiry proceedings and further made a remark that since it was raining on that date, he was unable to appear before enquiry officer with defence nominee. He requested for another date. He requested for another date. In fact, in this letter, enquiry officer conveyed to petitioner that already ex-parte proceedings have been initiated against him. On 28.08.1991 enquiry officer sent another communication to petitioner wherein he again required him to appear in enquiry proceedings on 06.09.1991 and also conveyed that enquiry has been ordered to proceed ex-parte against him. Copy of this letter was served upon petitioner on 05.09.1991 at 9.15 PM. Petitioner again insisted that he should be supplied relevant documents already demanded by him. In absence thereof, he would not be in a position to cross-examine witnesses. It was thereafter that on 23.09.1991 petitioner appeared before enquiry officer and submitted that he received communication about this date which was sent on 16.09.1991, belatedly on 20.09.1991 and requested for further time. He submitted yet another application to same effect to enquiry officer on 27.09.1991. On 06.09.1991 enquiry officer recorded statements of two witnesses, namely, Kumari Chanda and Shri Om Prakash in presence of petitioner. Thereafter proceedings were deferred to 16.09.1991, on which date also neither petitioner nor his defence nominee appeared in enquiry proceedings. Matter was then adjourned to 27.09.1991. On 28.08.1991 statement of complainant Smt. Nisha Sharma was recorded, who was cross-examined by defence nominee. Enquiry officer submitted his report to disciplinary authority on 19.12.1991 proving all charges against petitioner. Disciplinary authority by letter dated 19.12.1991 supplied a copy of that report to petitioner giving him an opportunity to make a representation, if he desired to do so, against same. Petitioner submitted his representation to disciplinary authority raising number of arguments, on 01.01.1992. Disciplinary authority by his order dated 01.02.1992 however inflicted penalty of removal upon petitioner, which is under challenge in present writ petition. 6. Shri Suresh Kashyap, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that enquiry officer conducted enquiry proceedings in flagrant violation of procedure provided in Rule 16 of CCA Rules inasmuch as enquiry was conducted in utter disregarded of principles of natural justice and fairness. Petitioner demanded copies of relevant documents because entire case against him was founded on statements recorded by police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Those statements were neither provided for inspection nor copies thereof were supplied to him. Petitioner demanded copies of relevant documents because entire case against him was founded on statements recorded by police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Those statements were neither provided for inspection nor copies thereof were supplied to him. Surprisingly, not only copies of those statements were not supplied, statements of witnesses, namely, Kumari Chanda and Om Prakash, were recorded by enquiry officer behind his back and petitioner was unaware of this fact as he was never informed thereabout and it was because of lack of information about the date of proceedings that he could not appear along-with his defence nominee to cross-examine complainant Smt. Nisha Sharma on 28.08.1991. Enquiry officer was biased against him from very first day especially when petitioner made repeated complaints against him before disciplinary authority and requested for change of enquiry officer. Enquiry officer had therefore made up his mind to record finding of guilt against petitioner, regardless of whatever evidence came on record. Petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance regularly which also prejudiced his defence. It was argued that notice dated 14.08.1991 requiring petitioner to appear in enquiry proceedings on 28.08.1991, was in fact served at 12.00 in noon of 28.08.1991 itself, which clearly shows how biased enquiry officer was against petitioner. Petitioner made a detailed note on original notice to this effect. Even then, neither enquiry officer nor disciplinary authority dealt with this aspect. Even subsequent notice dated 28.08.1991 by which petitioner was required to appear in enquiry proceedings on 06.09.1991, was deliberately served on him at 9.15 PM on 05.09.1991 so that he may not get proper opportunity to defend himself. Petitioner made an endorsement to that effect in original notice itself but this was also not considered by enquiry officer nor even by disciplinary authority considered the same. 7. Shri Suresh Kashyap, learned counsel further argued that even though disciplinary authority gave specific direction to enquiry officer by letter dated 21.07.1991 to supply relevant documents to petitioner but enquiry officer did not comply with that direction. Learned counsel made specific reference to number of documents which petitioner demanded by letter dated 04.06.1991 which included statements of five witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and medical examination report of complainant and also chemical examination report of her clothes. Learned counsel made specific reference to number of documents which petitioner demanded by letter dated 04.06.1991 which included statements of five witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and medical examination report of complainant and also chemical examination report of her clothes. Learned counsel also referred to application submitted by defence nominee of petitioner to disciplinary authority wherein he pointed out that enquiry officer was not properly following rule of procedure in conduct of enquiry. He called witnesses without intimation to petitioner and statements of first two witnesses were recorded in absence of petitioner without opportunity of cross-examining them. Whereas under sub-rule (6) of Rule 16 of CCA Rules first requirement is to supply list of witnesses and list of documents by the presenting officer within ten days of receipt of same; delinquent officer was then also required to submit lists of his witnesses and documents. Learned counsel argued that enquiry report has also been prepared in one sided manner which is not more than reproduction of statements of witnesses and charges. Nothing has been done by enquiry officer in preparing the same. Enquiry officer recorded his conclusion only in few lines in Para 10 of enquiry report, whereas in most part of enquiry report, he merely referred to earlier incident and gave the finding only in just two lines that charges against petitioner are proved. Petitioner submitted a detailed representation against enquiry officer in which he pointed out all these glaring irregularities but none of them were considered by disciplinary authority, who completed mere ritual of passing removal order without applying mind to arguments raised in that representation. Making a comparison of removal order passed by disciplinary authority with the enquiry report, learned counsel showed to court report of disciplinary authority from page 1 to page 9 and in fact from first page to page 9 enquiry report was only full of reproduction of charges and statements and conclusions have been humidly recorded by disciplinary authority only in last paragraph. This therefore shows that there was complete non-application of mind both on part of enquiry officer and disciplinary authority. Appellate authority has also mechanically rejected appeal of petitioner and reviewing authority too mechanically rejected his review application. 8. This therefore shows that there was complete non-application of mind both on part of enquiry officer and disciplinary authority. Appellate authority has also mechanically rejected appeal of petitioner and reviewing authority too mechanically rejected his review application. 8. Shri Suresh Kashyap, learned counsel relied on judgment of this court in Naushad Ali vs. State of Rajasthan and Another – 2010 (2) WLC (Raj.) 561 = 2010(4) RLW 3174, and Bhanwar Singh vs. State and Others – 2010 (4) CDR 2090 (Raj.). It is argued that initially complaint was made only on allegation of outraging modesty of prosecutrix but in order to victimize petitioner, police filed challan for offence under Section 376 IPC but learned Court of Sessions, Sawai Madhopur, vide its judgment dated 13.03.1996, acquitted petitioner of all charges. Allegation was not believed because for various lacunae. Not even the charge of outraging modesty of complainant can be taken proved on basis of statement recorded in present enquiry. Bias on the part of disciplinary authority is evident from fact that though complainant in her statement recorded before enquiry officer did not make any allegation of rape, yet disciplinary authority in removal order recorded this fact attributing such statement to her. It is therefore prayed that writ petition may be allowed. 9. Per contra, Shri B.S. Rajawat, learned Deputy Government Counsel for respondents, opposed writ petition and submitted that enquiry officer has found all charges proved against petitioner. Petitioner was given number of opportunities but he deliberately did not choose to appear before enquiry officer. Learned counsel submitted that whatever documents were demanded by petitioner were made available to him for inspection. Learned counsel in this respect drew attention of court towards document Exhibit P-1 produced in enquiry proceedings, which is report of LDC in office of enquiry officer and statement of Ram Kalyan (PW-1). Learned counsel also submitted that petitioner was informed of each and every date and that on some of dates even though he attended office of enquiry officer but deliberately did not participate in enquiry proceedings. Argument of false implication of petitioner was denied. It is argued that when disciplinary authority concurred with finding given by enquiry officer, he was not required to deal with each and every argument. Charge against petitioner was quite serious and therefore penalty of removal was commensurate with gravity of the charge. Argument of false implication of petitioner was denied. It is argued that when disciplinary authority concurred with finding given by enquiry officer, he was not required to deal with each and every argument. Charge against petitioner was quite serious and therefore penalty of removal was commensurate with gravity of the charge. Appellate authority and reviewing authority have rightly rejected his appeal/review petition. Learned counsel for respondents relied on judgment of this Court in Guljari Lal Saraswat vs. State of Rajasthan and Others – 2007 (2) R.L.R. 218. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions of parties and perused material on record. 11. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for petitioner primarily on arguments relating to validity of order passed by disciplinary authority and appellate authority and therefore this Court is called upon to examine those arguments in light of precedents which have been cited. It is contented that Rules 16(9) and 16(10) of CCA Rules have been violated by disciplinary authority where it decided to award penalty of removal to petitioner. It is also contended that since disciplinary authority himself was not Enquiry Officer, it was all the more necessary for him to record his finding on each of charges and when disciplinary authority served upon delinquent show cause notice along with enquiry report, it was also obligatory upon him to consider and decide points which delinquent raised in reply to such show cause notice. The impugned order of penalty in present case hardly shows any consideration, let alone recording charge wise findings. Out of nine page order, its eight pages merely contain charges and factual narration of the proceedings and statements of witnesses and only last para of Page 9 contains findings recorded by disciplinary authority. Disciplinary authority in that last page merely states that he having minutely considered evidence and record of case and taking into consideration gravity of charge, did not consider petitioner fit to be retained in service and therefore awarded him penalty of removal from service. That is all which has been mentioned in ultimate finding which disciplinary authority has recorded while removing petitioner from service. 12. That is all which has been mentioned in ultimate finding which disciplinary authority has recorded while removing petitioner from service. 12. The division bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Amolak Chand Sanghi – RLR 1983 246, after analyzing number of Supreme Court judgments, in para 16 of judgment observed as under: “It follows from the rules referred to above as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court that the Disciplinary Authority before imposing any one of the penalties specified in r.14 of the Rules should record reasons in support of it so that the Courts may be able to examine its correctness. No reasons whatsoever have been given by the Government in support of the order Ex.5. The explanation of the petitioner has also not been considered. There does not appear to be any application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority to the record and enquiry report. The order Ex.5 dated September 17, 1965 is not in accordance with Rr.14 and 16(9) of the Rules. We agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that in the absence of any reasons having been recorded, the order Ex.5 dated September 17, 1965 is vitiated.” 13. In Prabhu Lal Agrawal vs. State and Others – RLR 1991 (2) 630, a coordinate bench of this Court following division bench judgment in State of Rajasthan vs. Amolak Chand Sanghi, supra and various other judgments held in para 10 as under: “Perusal of Rule 14 shows that the reasons which are required to be recorded must be good and sufficient. The appellate authority while deciding appeal under rule 30(2) of the 1958 Rules and the High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can examine whether the reasons given by the Disciplinary Authority are valid or not and whether there are sufficient grounds for imposing a particular punishment. The argument of the respondents that when the Disciplinary Authority agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and gives a show cause notice, thereafter, it is not obliged to pass a detailed reasoned order after receipt of the reply by the delinquent, cannot be accepted. The argument of the respondents that when the Disciplinary Authority agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and gives a show cause notice, thereafter, it is not obliged to pass a detailed reasoned order after receipt of the reply by the delinquent, cannot be accepted. Where the Enquiry Officer is different than the Disciplinary Authority, the delinquent employee gets his first opportunity, while submitting his representation, to show that the Enquiry Officer has not complied with the provisions of the Rules while holding the enquiry or that he has not acted in conformity with the principles of natural justice. It is at that stage when the delinquent can show that the Enquiry Officer has relied upon illegal and inadmissible evidence or that he has taken into consideration extraneous material / evidence or such material of which no notice was given to the delinquent. He can show that the Enquiry Officer has misread the evidence or has not appreciated the evidence produced during the course of enquiry or that the Enquiry Officer has ignored the evidence. He can show that the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence are not warranted. He can plead that even if the findings / conclusions of the Enquiry Officer are correct, he cannot be punished on account of his good record or that the proposed punishment is excessive or disproportionate to the allegations levelled against him and found proved. He can also plead that the Enquiry Officer had not acted impartially or had acted with bias. All these points cannot always be raised before the Enquiry Officer. The delinquent gets the first opportunity to raise these points when he submits his representation in respect of the findings / conclusions recorded by the Enquiry Officer. It is only after this that the Disciplinary Authority gets an opportunity to examine the points raised by the delinquent and decide them. If the Disciplinary Authority was merely to write that it has considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and representation of the delinquent and it is satisfied that the charges are proved and the punishment is warranted, the opportunity given to the delinquent to submit representation will be reduced to a farce. It must, therefore, be held that the Disciplinary Authority must consider the representation of the delinquent employee and then pass a speaking order.” 14. It must, therefore, be held that the Disciplinary Authority must consider the representation of the delinquent employee and then pass a speaking order.” 14. It should be evident from above referred to cases that requirement of passing speaking order by quasi judicial authority embraces within itself necessity of showing that authority has applied its mind to material which has been produced before it, considered them positively and then recorded his finding and conclusion with reasons on each of charges. Application of mind by disciplinary authority must be discernible from penalty order which he passed. Mere repetition of any of Rule or statements of witnesses so as to show that he has considered entire evidence on record and finds charges grave enough to warrant removal from service, cannot be accepted as sufficient compliance of Rule 16(9). Moreover, in present case, petitioner had given a detailed representation to disciplinary authority in response to show cause notice with which he was supplied copy of enquiry report. Even that has not been considered by disciplinary authority which as per Rule 16(10) of CCA Rules was mandatory recruitment. A coordinate bench of this Court in Dr. R.K. Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan – RLR 1989(1) 659, while considering Rule 16(10)(ii)(b), held that disciplinary authority is duty bound to consider representation submitted by delinquent in response to show cause notice and if he has failed to do so, order imposing penalty deserves to be struck down. 15. Coming now to validity of appellate order, I find that appellate authority has also in present case similarly dealt with arguments of petitioner or rather not dealt with his arguments which is evident from his order that he also likewise considered and disposed of appeal in last one para of order of two pages. Out of two pages, first and half page is of reproduction of charges and gist of appeal and in last one para, he has merely made reference to various charges, without discussing any of findings recorded by Enquiry Officer and/or disciplinary authority with reference to evidence adduced. Out of two pages, first and half page is of reproduction of charges and gist of appeal and in last one para, he has merely made reference to various charges, without discussing any of findings recorded by Enquiry Officer and/or disciplinary authority with reference to evidence adduced. Rule 30(2) of CCA Rules provides that in case of an appeal against an order imposing any of penalties specified in Rule 14, appellate authority shall consider - (a) whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of Constitution or in failure of justice; (b) whether the facts on which the order was passed has been established (c) whether the facts established afford sufficient jurisdiction for making an order; and (d) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate. None of those aspects have been visited by appellate authority. Reasons which are assigned by appellate authority in rejecting appeal of petitioner can hardly be said to be reasons as per requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 30. 16. Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Others – (2009) 2 SCC 570 , observed that disciplinary authority, as also appellate authority has to indicate reasons in support of its order because orders passed by them have severe civic consequences. This Court in Datar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Others – RLR 1989 (1) 757 = 1989(1) RLW 387, while considering similar arguments where appellate authority rejected appeal without assigning reasons, quashed dismissal order of police employee holding that they were required to pass a speaking order. In Prabhu Lal Agrawal, supra, a coordinate bench of this Court held that appellate authority while deciding an appeal under the Rules can examine whether reasons given by disciplinary authority are valid or not, and then pass detailed order as it is obligatory upon appellate authority to take into consideration record of enquiry, order of punishment and appeal and thereafter to pass speaking order giving reasons. 17. It is trite law following various judicial pronouncements that disciplinary proceedings are of quasi judicial or quasi criminal in nature. 17. It is trite law following various judicial pronouncements that disciplinary proceedings are of quasi judicial or quasi criminal in nature. Although, it is not necessary to prove the charges in disciplinary proceedings by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the case in criminal trial, but at same time, the charges therein are required to be proved by preponderance of evidence. The procedure that is provided for in Rule 16 of CCA Rules is a complete code in itself which in its sub-rule 6(a) clearly provides that where a Government servant has pleaded not guilty to the charges at commencement of enquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall ask Presenting Officer appearing on behalf of Disciplinary Authority to submit list of witnesses and documents within 10 days, who shall also simultaneously send a copy to Government servant. Delinquent officer, within ten days of receipt of lists of prosecution witnesses and documents, shall submit list of documents relied by him for his defence. The Inquiring Authority shall then summon documents of both sides and ask parties to admit or deny them. It shall then summon such evidence as is necessary, giving opportunity to presenting officer and also to delinquent or his assisting officer for cross examination. Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine witnesses on any point. After close of prosecution evidence, delinquent shall be called upon to submit his witnesses. 18. In the case in hand, the enquiry officer has violated every single requirement of this sub-rule (6) of Rule 16. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 16 provides that at the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons. In present case, Enquiry Officer has not recorded his finding in both charges, on the basis of any record produced by respondents or evidence of any of witnesses examined on their behalf. Disciplinary Authority also completely lost sight of this fact. Initial burden to prove the charges would always rest with department. Even if standard of proof that is acquired in disciplinary enquiry is that of preponderance of evidence, the enquiring authority could not shift burden of proof at that stage onto the delinquent although of course at initial level if department has been able to reasonably discharge its onus, he may call upon delinquent to adduce his evidence against that. Even if standard of proof that is acquired in disciplinary enquiry is that of preponderance of evidence, the enquiring authority could not shift burden of proof at that stage onto the delinquent although of course at initial level if department has been able to reasonably discharge its onus, he may call upon delinquent to adduce his evidence against that. In this connection, the observations of Supreme Court in para 25 of M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India and Others – (2006) 5 SCC 88 , may be of relevance, which is reproduced hereunder: “25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a department proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.” 19. Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated before this Court that enquiry proceedings were not held in keeping with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as notice dated 14.08.1991 was sent to petitioner by enquiry officer calling upon him to appear in disciplinary proceedings along-with his defence nominee on 28.08.1991; curiously, this letter was served upon petitioner on 28.08.1991 itself which is evident from endorsement made by petitioner on the notice that he received the same at 12.00 in noon of that date and due to rains he was unable to appear before enquiry officer with his defence nominee. In fact in this letter itself the enquiry officer conveyed to petitioner that proceedings have already been started against him. Another letter was sent by enquiry officer to petitioner on 28.08.1991 wherein he was required to appear in enquiry proceedings on 06.09.1991. In fact in this letter itself the enquiry officer conveyed to petitioner that proceedings have already been started against him. Another letter was sent by enquiry officer to petitioner on 28.08.1991 wherein he was required to appear in enquiry proceedings on 06.09.1991. Surprisingly this letter was also served on petitioner at 9.30 PM on 06.09.1991, thus practically leaving no time to petitioner to prepare his defence. Even when these two dates were fixed and on earlier dates and subsequent dates, petitioner consistently reiterated his demand for supply of copies of statements of witnesses, recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure but neither those copies were supplied nor were made available for inspection by petitioner. Two witnesses were examined in absence of petitioner and, despite his request, they were not called for cross-examination. The procedure envisaged in sub-rule (6) of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was not at all followed neither any list of witnesses nor documents were furnished within ten days by the Department. This clearly shows that there was complete violation of procedure contained in CCA Rules as also principles of natural justice. 20. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order of removal dated 01.02.1992 passed by respondent no.3 Superintendent of Police, CID (CB), Rajasthan, Jaipur, order dated 09.06.1993 of Deputy Inspector General of Police C.I.D. (Intelligence), Rajasthan, Jaipur, rejecting his appeal, and order dated 04.08.1994 rejecting his review petition, are quashed and set aside. Petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement in service in same status in which he was at the time of his removal which means he would be deemed to be continued in service of respondents under suspension throughout, for intervening period entitling him to receive amount of subsistence allowance. Respondents would however be at liberty to hold enquiry afresh in accordance with rules of procedure contained in Rule 16 of CCA Rules strictly and conclude such enquiry proceedings within a period of one year from the date copy of this order is produced before them. 21. Compliance of judgment be made within three months from date a copy of this order is produced before them.