JUDGMENT 1. - Under a memorandum dated 2.4.2004 a disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner as per Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. " 1- ;g fd vki fnukad 20-8-2003 dks lka;dky vki pkSdh lq[ksj {ks= esa fLFkr fp=dqV uxj esa igqaps tgka ,d lqus edku esa Jh dey iq= [ksejkt rsyh dks y{eh yksgkj uked ,d efgyk ds lkFk lafnXnkoLFkk esa idM+k ftldks vkius dkuwuh dk;Zokgh esa Qalkus dh /kedh nh o ekjihV dh rFkk mldh eksVj lkbZdy dks vius dCts esa ys yhA 2- ;g fd vkius dey rsyh dks dkuwuh dk;Zokgh esa Qalkus dk Hk; fn[kk dj ekeys dks jQk nQk djus ds fy;s 25 gtkj :0 dh ekax dhA dey rsyh }kjk fourh djus ij vki 4000@& :0 ysdj ekeys dks jQk nQk djus ij jkth gks x;sA dey rsyh dh eksVj lkbZfdy dks vkius vius dCts esa j[kdj mls :i;s ykus ds fy;s NksM+kA dey rsyh us lqUnjyky rSyh ls 4000@& :0 ykdj vkidksa fn;s mlds ckn vkius dksbZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh fd;s fcuk o mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks dksbZ lwpuk fn;s fcuk dey rsyh vkSj mldh eksVj lkbZfdy dks NksM+ fn;kA 3- ;g fd vkids fo:) dey rsyh }kjk fnukad 21-8-2003 dks Fkkuk vEckekrk ij mifLFkr gksdj tckuh bryk is'k dh tks jkstukepk vke j0la0 1373 le; 8-20 ih,e ij ntZ dh xbZA bldh tkudkjh vkidks gksus ij vkius dey rsth ls voS/k :i ls olwy fd;s 4000@& :0 mls fnukad 22-8-2003 dks okil ykSVk fn;sA 4- ;g fd vkius dey rsyh }kjk izLrqr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ;g rF; lkeus vk;s gS fd Jherh y{eh yksgkj] Jherh ehuw ckbZ ,oa Jh yksds'k [kVhd vkfn dk ,d laxfBr fxjksg Fkk tks Jh dey tSls O;fDr;ksa dks Qkal dj :i;s ,saBus dk vijkf/kd d`R; djrs FksA vxj le; ij vki }kjk dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tkrh rks bl fxjksg dk Hk.Mk QksM+ fd;k tkdj bUgs dkuwuu ltk fnykbZ tk ldrh FkhA exj vkidh dRrZO; foeq[krk ds dkj.k ;g ugha gks ldkA 5- ;g fd vkius dey rsyh o y{eh yksgkj uked efgyk dks lqus edku esa lafnXnkoLFkk esa idM+us ds ckotqn dRrZO; ls foeq[k gksdj bUgsa Mjk /kedk dk voS/k :i ls 4000@& :0 izkIr dj ekeys dks jQk nQk dj fn;kA bl izdkj vkius vijkf/kd d`R; dj iqfyl dh Nfo dks /kwfey fd;k gSA vkidk mDr d`R; dRrZO; foeq[krk ,oa vijkf/kd izd`fr dk |ksrd gksdj dkfcy n.Muh; gSA " 2. The disciplinary authority after receiving the report of Enquiry Officer and the record of enquiry by notice dated Nil (Annex.4) called upon the petitioner to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the enquiry report. A detailed explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 19.11.2004, raising several objections about the fairness of enquiry. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 18.12.2004 held the petitioner guilty for all the charges of misconduct and imposed a penalty of dismissal from service upon him. While doing so, the disciplinary authority at the first quoted the charges levelled against the petitioner, re-produced the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and the explanation submitted by the delinquent employee. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 18.12.2004 held the petitioner guilty for all the charges of misconduct and imposed a penalty of dismissal from service upon him. While doing so, the disciplinary authority at the first quoted the charges levelled against the petitioner, re-produced the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and the explanation submitted by the delinquent employee. The disciplinary authority then recorded his conclusion in the following terms : " eSusa lEiw.kZ foHkkxh; tkap i=koyh] vkjksi i= ,oa tkap vf/kdkjh vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd 'kgj mn;iqj }kjk izLrqr tkap izfrosnu rFkk vkjksih }kjk izLrqr dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl ds tokc dk HkyhHkkafr xgurk ls v/;;u ,oa euu fd;k rFkk vkjksih dkfu0 Jh doajikyflag ua0 1118 dks O;fDrxr lk{kkRdkj dk volj fn;k tkdj lquk x;k rks vkjksih dkfu0 }kjk izLrqr tokc ,oa O;fDrxr lk{kkRdkj eSa crk;s x;s rdZ ekuus ;ksX; ugha gSA foHkkxh; tkap ,oa c;kukr xokgu ,oa fjdkMZ ls vkjksih dkfu0 ij yxk;s x;s leLr vkjksi iw.kZr;k izekf.kr ik;s x;s gSA O;fDrxr lk{kkRdkj esa vkjksih dkfu0 }kjk vius cpko esa mBk;s x;s rdZ ,oa fdlh xokgku o f'kdk;rdrkZ }kjk vkjksih dh rkbZn ugha djuk crk;k tkus ij vkjksih dkfu0 ds rdksZ o tokc dks e/; utj j[krs gq, esjs }kjk foHkkxh; tkap drkZ vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd 'kgj] f'kdk;r drkZ Jh dey rsyh ,oa xokgku dks cqyk;s tkdj mudks lquk x;k o bl ekeys dh iwNrkN dh xbZ rks f'kdk;r drkZ ,oa xokgku us crk;k fd Jh daojiky flag dkfu0 tks o"kZ 2003 esa iqfyl pkSdh lq[ksj Fkkuk vEckekrk ij inLFkkfir FkkA mDr dkfu0 us fnukad 20-8-2003 dks eq>s f'kdk;r drkZ dey rsyh dks ,oa y{eh yksgkj dks pkSdh lq[ksj {ks= ds fp=dwV uxj esa ,d lqu edku esa lafnXnkoLFkk esa idM+kA ftl ij eSa iqfyl dk;Zokgh ,oa ekjihV ds Hk; ls Hk;Hkhr gks x;k rFkk vkjksih iqfyl dkfu0 }kjk ekeys dks jQk nQk djus ds fy, 25000@& :0 dh ekax djus ij rFkk eq>s f'kdk;r drkZ dey rsyh }kjk fcurh djus ij ekeys dks 4000@& :0 ysdj jQk nQk djus ij vkjksih dkfu0 jkth gks x;k rFkk eq> f'kdk;rdrkZ dh eksVj lkbZfdy dks vius dCts esa j[k dj :i;s ykus ds fy, NksM+k ftl ij f'kdk;r drkZ dey rsyh] xokg lqUnjykyk rsyh ls 4000@& :0 ykdj vkjksih dkfu0 dks fn;sA tks vkjksih dkfu0 Jh doajiky flag 1118 us f'kdk;r drkZ Jh dey rsyh ls 4000@& :0 crkSj fj'or izkIr dj Jh dey rsyh dks mlds fo:) dksbZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh fd;s fcuk gh mls NksM+ fn;k rFkk vkjksih dkfu0 us bl ekeys dh tkudkjh vius mPpkf/kdkfj;ks dks ugha nhA bl ekeys dh f'kdk;r ifjoknh Jh dey rsyh }kjk fnukad 21-8-2003 dks Fkkuk vEckekrk ij dh tkus ij Fkkukf/kdkjh vEckekrk }kjk dkfu0 doajiky flag 1118 ds fo:) ekeys dh izkFkfed tkap dh tkdj ekQZr o`rkf/kdkjh uxj if'pe dh fVIi.kh ds bl dk;kZy; esa izsf"kr dhA izkFkfed tkap ls dkfu0 Jh doajiky flag ds fo:) f'kdk;r drkZ }kjk yxk;s x;s vk{ksi izekf.kr gksus ls Jh doajiky flag dkfu0 ds fo:) fu;e 16 jkt0lh0lh0,0 :Yl ds vUrxZr pktZ'khV tkjh dh xbZ tks vkjksih dkfu0 us izkIr dj tokc is'k dj ekeys dh [kqyh foHkkxh; tkap pkgh ftl ij ekeys dh foHkkxh; tkap vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd 'kgj mn;iqj ls fu;ekuqlkj djkbZ xbZ rks foHkkxh; tkap drkZ }kjk vkjksih dkfu0 Jh doajiky flag ua0 1118 ij yxk;s x;s leLr vkjksi la0 1 ls 5 rd izekf.kr ekus ftl ij vkjksih dkfu0 dks bl dk;kZy; ls Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 311 ( 2 ) ds v/khu dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl ,ao tkWap vf/kdkjh dh tkap fjiksVZ ds loZ djkbZ xbZ tks vkjksih dkfu0 us izkIr dj viuk tokc is'k fd;k rFkk vkjksih dkfu0 dks O;fDrxr lk{kkRdkj esa Hkh cqyk;k tkdj lquk x;k rks vkjksih us bl ekeys esa viuh lafyIrrk gksus ls bUdkj fd;kA eSaus izkFkfed tkap ,oa vkjksih dkfu0 ds fo:) vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd 'kgj mn;iqj }kjk dh xbZ foHkkxh; tkap dk iw.kZ :i ls voyksdu ,oa v/;;u fd;k rks tkap ls vkjksih Jh daojiky flag dkfu0 1118 ij yxk;s x;s lHkh ikapksa vkjksi izekf.kr ik;s x;sA vkjksih dkfu0 dk ;g d`R; xSj ftEesnkjkuk] drZO; foeq[krk ,oa vijkf/kd izo`fr dk gSA vkjksih dkfu0 us futh LokFkZ iwfrZ ds fy, iqfyl foHkkx esa jgrs gq, iqfyl fu;eksa dk mYya?ku dj vijk/kksa dh jksdFkke djus ds ctk; dkuwu dks vius gkFk esa ysdj vijk/kh izo`fr ds O;fDr;kWa dks O;fDrxr :i ls Qk;nk igqapk;k o mudks dkuwuh n.M ls cpk;k gSA blls vketu esa iqfyl foHkkx dh Nfo /kwfey gks iqfyl ds izfr foHkkx esa j[kuk] vijk/kksa dks c<+kok nsuk o vketu esa iqfyl ds izfr vfo'okl tkx`r djuk gSA " 3. As per Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958, the petitioner preferred an appeal to question validity, propriety and correctness of order dated 18.12.2004 and that came to be allowed in part vide order dated 31.10.2005. The appellate authority found the enquiry laconic as an opportunity of cross-examination was not accorded to the delinquent, but relying upon the report of preliminary enquiry, held the petitioner guilty. The appellate authority modified the penalty and substituted the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect instead of dismissal from service. 4. While challenging the order dated 31.10.2005 passed by the appellate authority as well as the order dated 18.12.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the appellate authority reached at the conclusion that the enquiry was not fair as no opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witness was accorded, then there was no need to held the petitioner guilty and to penalise him. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the appellate authority should have either quashed the order passed by the disciplinary authority in totality or at the most may have remitted the matter for an enquiry de novo. 5. Per contra, as per learned counsel for the respondents, the appellate authority considered entire record of enquiry and found that during the course of preliminary enquiry a finding was recorded against the petitioner, and the person who conducted the preliminary enquiry appeared before the Enquiry Officer as a departmental witness. He supported the contents and findings given by him in the preliminary enquiry. No wrong, as such, was committed while holding the petitioner guilty for the misconduct alleged. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. From perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority, it is apparent that a definite finding is given that the enquiry was not in accordance with the Rules, as no opportunity of cross-examination was accorded to the delinquent employee, but the appellate authority while relying upon the report of preliminary enquiry held the petitioner guilty and modified the penalty. 8. The statement of Shri Khushal Singh, who conducted the preliminary enquiry against the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer as PW-6 are available on record. 8. The statement of Shri Khushal Singh, who conducted the preliminary enquiry against the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer as PW-6 are available on record. Shri Khushal Singh, though, substantiated the contents of report made by him, but at the same time he also stated that no instructions in writing were given to him by any competent officer for conducting preliminary enquiry. In such circumstance the preliminary enquiry, if conducted cannot be held as a valid part of disciplinary action. Whatever enquiry was conducted by Shri Khushal Singh, that was without any authority, hence, that could have not been relied upon. It is further relevant to note that the appellate authority, if found the petitioner guilty for a serious charge of accepting illegal gratification and serious lapses in duties, then there was no reason to modify the punishment. It appears that the appellate authority itself was confused and was not certain about the findings, thus, given while holding the enquiry not in accordance with law, also imposed a lesser penalty by relying upon the preliminary enquiry's report. 9. I am also of the view that the order passed by the disciplinary authority too is not sustainable in the eye of law, even otherwise too. As per Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958, the disciplinary authority is required to give a definite finding against each and every charge by discussing the evidence available. In the instant matter, the disciplinary authority first quoted the charges, then reproduced the report of enquiry officer, the explanation submitted by the petitioner and thereafter provided his conclusion. The conclusion given is not based or supported by adequate reasons. A bare reading of the conclusions shows that the petitioner was held guilty just by accepting the findings given by the enquiry officer. It is well-settled that the report of enquiry officer is a material adverse to a delinquent employee, therefore, a copy of the same is required to be supplied to him with instructions to submit explanation, if any. The disciplinary authority before giving findings is required to consider entire record of enquiry, report of the enquiry officer, the explanation given by the delinquent employee and then he should give his findings on each and every change with reasons. The disciplinary authority before giving findings is required to consider entire record of enquiry, report of the enquiry officer, the explanation given by the delinquent employee and then he should give his findings on each and every change with reasons. In the case in hand, the disciplinary authority has accepted the findings given by the enquiry officer ipse dixit without discussing the record of enquiry and also the explanation given by the delinquent. No independent finding against each and every charge is given, as such infringement of Rule 16(9) of the Rules is apparent. 10. In view of whatever discussed above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance, accordingly the same is allowed. The order impugned dated 30.10.2005 (Annex.10) passed by the appellate authority is declared bad and is, therefore, quashed. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 18.12.2004 (Annex.7) is declared illegal for the reasons given by the appellate authority and also for the reasons subscribed by this Court, as above, thus, the order passed by the disciplinary authority is also quashed. The petitioner is declared entitled for all consequential benefits.Petition Allowed. *******