Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 16.8.2002 (Annex. 11), order dated 20.11.2002 (Annex. 12) and order dated 29.5.2003 (Annex. 13) with all consequential benefit and further prayed that the respondents may be directed to treat the petitioner in service as it he remained on duty throughout. 2. As per facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary in the year 1989 and he worked as such with utmost satisfaction of all concerned. Respondent No. 3 issued a show-cause notice on 3.12.2000 along with charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1958 and, upon receiving such charge-sheet the petitioner filed an application on 15.12.2000 for deman-ding record of the preliminary inquiry for filing reply to the show-cause notice. 3. Vide communication dated 20.12.2000, the petitioner was directed to file his reply without supplying copies. Hence, again, the petitioner filed representation to supply copies of the preliminary inquiry. Respondent No. 3 without providing copy of the preliminary inquiry made appointment of the inquiry officer and the inquiry officer vide letter dated 10.1.2001 asked the petitioner to file reply before the inquiry officer. On 15.1.2001, the inquiry officer asked the petitioner to opt for a defending officer while informing the petitioner that he has not been allowed to make inspection of the record. 4. The inquiry officer proceeded with the inquiry and, ultimately, the petitioner after getting his defence witnesses examined submitted his written arguments. The inquiry officer gave his report to the Disciplinary Authority and, vide communication date 28.8.2001 notice along with copy of the inquiry report, in which, the inquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of misconduct, sent to the petitioner for his reply. 5. After receiving the notice, the petitioner filed representation on 3.9.2001 but, ultimately, respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2002 whereby penalty of dismissal from service was imposed against the petitioner for alleged misconduct of filing false certificates for obtaining appointment as Constable in the RAC. 6. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal, however, respondent No. 2, Deputy Inspector General of Police, R.A.C., Range Jaipur dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, review petition filed by the petitioner before His Excellency the Governor. 6. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal, however, respondent No. 2, Deputy Inspector General of Police, R.A.C., Range Jaipur dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, review petition filed by the petitioner before His Excellency the Governor. Vide order dated 29.5.2003 the review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of all the above orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, appellate authority and the reviewing authority. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not sustainable in law because in the disciplinary inquiry the respondents violated the mandatory requirement of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules because the required documents were not supplied to the petitioner and before submission of the reply by the petitioner the Disciplinary Authority appointed inquiry officer and presenting officer, therefore, the whole inquiry is vitiated and punishment awarded on the basis of said inquiry deserves to be quashed because it is against the principles of natural justice and fair play. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per charge No. 2 it is alleged that the petitioner while entering date of birth as 9.2.1966 got admission at Government. Upper Primary School, Jaroda in Class I in the year 1976-77 and left the school after passing VIII Class in the session 1983-84; but, again, obtained admission in another school in Class VII viz., Sri Parswanath Upper Primary School, Merta Road while entering his date of birth as 15.7.1971 and passed Class VIII in the year 1985, therefore, the conduct of the petitioner is totally illegal; more so, it is fraud committed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner are for the period when the petitioner was minor and he did not take admission in the school on his own but his father or parents might have admitted the petitioner in another school for improvement of studies in Class VII again, therefore, for the alleged misconduct the petitioner cannot be held guilty because undisputedly at the time of filing application for appointment in the R.A.C. he has produced the certificate issued by Sri Parswanath Upper Primary School, Merta Road from where he passed VIII Class in the year 1985. Therefore, obviously the date of birth mentioned in the school record of Sri Parswanath Upper Primary School, Merta Road is correct from where the petitioner passed VIII Class in the year 1985. 9. Before the inquiry officer, statement of complainant Bhinya Ram was recorded in which he stated that no such complaint has ever been filed by him; meaning thereby, the inquiry in question has been conducted on the basis of complaint filed by unknown person falsely under false signature of Bhinya Ram who gave statement before the inquiry officer that no such complaint was filed by him. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon perusal of entire record it will reveal that certificates upon which the petitioner obtained appointment is not found to be false because in the statement of Vijay Singh s/o Gopi Singh, Head Master of the said school, he has categorically stated that the transfer certificate upon which the petitioner obtained appointment has been validity issued, in which, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned 15.7.1971. 11. In the statement of M.A. Nadim, PW.3, the officiating Head Master of Government Upper Primary School, Jaroda gave statement that Rati Ram was student of his school but he left the school after passing VIII Class in the year 1983-84 and as per the school record his date of birth is recorded as 9.2.1966; meaning thereby, it is abundantly clear from the record that the petitioner did not study in both the schools simultaneously; more so, it is revealed that after passing VIII Class in the year 1983-84 from the Government Upper Primary School, Jaroda, he again took admission in the year 1984 at Sri Parswanath Upper Primary School, Merta Road and, at that time, his date of birth was shown as 15.1.1971 by his parent. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it might be possible that the petitioner's parents thought it proper to admit the petitioner in VII Class and, for that reason, they admitted the petitioner again in VII Class but, at that time, it could not have been presumed to change the date of birth of the petitioner so as to enable him to obtain appointment on the post of Constable in future. If the date of birth of the petitioner was entered as 15.7.1971 in Sri Parswanath Upper Primary School, Merta Road by his parents the petitioner cannot be blamed because he was minor at that time and if any mistake is committed by the parents of the petitioner for the purpose of improvement of education of the petitioner, for that, the petitioner cannot be blamed and his services cannot be dispensed with upon complaint filed allegedly by Bhinya Ram who refused before the inquiry officer to accept that any complaint was filed by him. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that all these facts were narrated before thee inquiry officer and Disciplinary Authority that if any mistake is committed by his parents with regard to change of date of birth, the petitioner cannot be held guilty because at the time of entering in the service of the respondent department the certificate issued by the Merta Road school was with him and the same was filed for consideration of his candidature. It is also submitted that with a view to improving educational standard it is always open for the citizens to admit their wards in lower class again and it is obvious from the facts that the parents of the petitioner thought it necessary to admit the petitioner again in VII Class for improvement of his standard, then, how it can be termed as illegality or misconduct on the part of the petitioner; but all these aspects of the matter have not been considered either by the inquiry officer or the disciplinary Authority while holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no finding of the inquiry officer that any fraud is committed by the petitioner; more so, the certificate which is filed by the petitioner was found to be genuine by the inquiry officer after recording statement of Vijay Singh, P.W. 2. Therefore, it cannot be said that for obtaining appointment on the post of Constable any forged document was produced by the petitioner. The certificate upon which the petitioner was provided appointment was issued by the school, in which, the petitioner acquired VII and VIII Class qualification in the year 1984 and 1985, therefore, the termination of the petitioner's services is totally illegal. Hence, the orders impugned may be quashed and set aside. 15. The certificate upon which the petitioner was provided appointment was issued by the school, in which, the petitioner acquired VII and VIII Class qualification in the year 1984 and 1985, therefore, the termination of the petitioner's services is totally illegal. Hence, the orders impugned may be quashed and set aside. 15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, Mr. S.D. Khaspuria vehemently argued that in the inquiry the inquiry officer gave finding that to change the date of birth the petitioner took admission subsequently after passing VIII Class in VII Class in another school, in which, he mentioned his date of birth as 15.7.1971 instead of 9.2.1966, therefore, once the statements of Vijay Singh, PW.2 Head Master of Sri Parswanath Upper Primary School, Merta Road and M.A. Nadim, PW.3 officiating Head Master of Govt. Upper Primary School, Jaroda were recorded by the inquiry officer, it is clear that the petitioner obtained certificate of qualification so as to change his date of birth, therefore, it cannot be said that the findings given by the inquiry officer were wrong which is based upon sound reasons. It is submitted by counsel for the State that the procedure laid down under the CCA Rules was followed and, ultimately, upon misconduct proved in the inquiry the Disciplinary Authority passed order for termination of the services of the petitioner which is not illegal. 16. It is also submitted by counsel for the State that the appellate authority and reviewing authority upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was innocent and is entitled to remain in service, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case. 18. 17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case. 18. Following two charges were levelled against the petitioner who was working on the post of Constable No. 973: ^^vkjksi la[;k 1 ;g fd vki Jh jfr jke dkfu- ua- 973 ^^,Q** dEiuh] rhljh cVk- vkj,lh o"kZ 1989 esa fnukad 21-8-89 dks dkfu- in ij fu;qfDr gsrq QthZ f'k{kk izek.k i= izLrqr dj f}rh;] cVk- vkj,lh esa dkfuLVscy ds in ij fu;qfDr izkIr dh gSA vkidk ;g d`R; vR;Ur fuUnuh; ,oa nqjkpj.k dk |ksrd gS] ftlds fy, vki nks"kh gSaA vkjksi la[;k 2 ;g fd vki Jh jfr jke dkfu-ua- 973 ^^,Q** dEiuh] rhljh cVk- vkj,lh o"kZ 76-77 esa jktdh; ek-fo- tjksMk esa izFke d{kk esa v/;;u gsrq nkf[kyk fy;k Fkk rFkk o"kZ 83-84 esa blh fo|ky; esa d{kk vkBoha mRrh.kZ dh gS rFkk vkidh tUe frfFk 9 Qjojh 1966 fo|ky; ds fjdkMZ esa vafdr gSA ysfdu vkius viuh tUe frfFk 9-2-1966 ds LFkku ij 15-7-1971 ntZ djokdj iqu% Jh QykSnh ik'oZukFk m-izk- fo|ky; esMrk jksM ftyk ukxkSj esa fnukad 26-2-84 dks d{kk lkroha esa izos'k ysdj vkSj o"kZ 1985 esa d{kk vkBoha mRrh.kZ dh gSA bl izdkj vkius viuh tUe frfFk vuqfpr rjhds ls ifjorZu djokdj dkfu- ds in ij fu;qfDr izkIr dh gSA vr% vkidk mijksDr dk;Z /kks[kk/kMh] nqjkpj.k dk |ksrd gS] ftlds fy, vki nks"kh gSA** 19. After issuing the aforesaid charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules the inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer. Before the inquiry officer, statements of 4 witnesses viz., PW.1 Rameshwar Lal, RPS, who conducted the preliminary inquiry, PW.2 Vijay Singh, PW.3 M.A. Nadim and PW. 4, Bhinya Ram were recorded to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner and, in defence, statements D.W. 1 Mishra Ram, D.W. 2 Surja Ram, D.W. 3 Ram Chandra and D.W. 4 Lakshman Ram, all sons of Misra Ram were recorded. 4, Bhinya Ram were recorded to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner and, in defence, statements D.W. 1 Mishra Ram, D.W. 2 Surja Ram, D.W. 3 Ram Chandra and D.W. 4 Lakshman Ram, all sons of Misra Ram were recorded. Thereafter, the inquiry officer gave following finding for alleged misconduct: ^^Jh jfrjke dkfu- 973 ^^,Q**@gsM Dok- dEiuh rhljh cVk- vkj-,-lh- ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi la[;k 1 ls 2 rd vfHk;kstu i{k ds xokgksa ds c;kuksa] lqfp nLrkost ,oa Lo;a ds dFku ,oa Lo;a ds tokc esa ekuk gS fd vk;q de djokus ds fy, 'kiFk i= ds vk/kkj ij Jh QykSnh ik'oZukFk fo|ky; esMrk jksM esa izos'k 7oha d{kk esa fy;k Fkk] ds vk/kkj ij iw.kZr;k izekf.kr gSa Jh jfrjke dkfu- 973 us f'k{kk l= 1976-77 esa jktdh; ek-fo- tkjksMk esa izFke d{kk esa nkf[kyk ysdj f'k{kk l= 1983-84 esa bl fo|ky; ls ebZ 84 dks d{kk vkBoha mRrh.kZ dh bl fo|ky; ds fjdkMZ esa budh tUe frfFk 9-2-1966 ntZ Fkh ftldh iq"Vh Ldkyj jftLVj ls gksrh gS fnukad 26-2-84 dks Jh jfrjke us QykSnh ik'oZukFk m-izk- fo|ky; esMrk jksM esa d{kk lkroha esa izos'k ysdj f'k{kk l= 84-85 esa d{kk v"Ve mRrh.kZ dh rFkk viuh tUe frfFk 15-7-71 ntZ djokdj izos'k fy;k] tkjksMk fo|ky; ls ebZ 84 dks fu;fer fo|kFkhZ ds :i esa d{kk vkBoha mRrh.kZ djus okyk Nk= fnukad 26-2-84 dks d{kk lkroh esa dSls nkf[kyk ys ldrk gS ,d gh f'k{kk l= esa nks vyx vyx fo|ky;ksa ¼ftudh nwjh yxHkx 7 fdeh gS½ esa drbZ v/;;ujr ugha jg ldrk gS Jh QykSnh ik'oZukFk Ldwy ¼tks futh f'k{k.k laLFkk gS½ esa Jh jfrjke dks 'kiFk i= ds vk/kkj ij nkf[kyk ysuk Ldkyj jftLVj esa vafdr gS ;g 'kiFk i= dkfu- us izLrqr ugha fd;k tUe frfFk esa ifjorZu djokus dh tks viukbZ xbZ oks fu;ekuqlkj ugha Fkh vkSj u gh Ldwy esa 'kiFk i= izkIr gqvk gS fd 'kiFk i= esa D;k vafdr fd;k x;k FkkA vk;q dks de djokus fd izfØ;k mlh Ldwy ¼iwoZ½ esa dh tkuh pkfg;s Fkh vr% 'kiFk i= ds vk/kkj ij izos'k ysuk xyr FkkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ftl izfØ;k ls izos'k fy;k x;k gS og xyr izdV gksrk gSa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls ;gh izdV gksrk gS fd vkjksih us dqN rF; fNik;s gS tks fd lR; ugha gS fd 'kiFk i= esa dgha u i<uk fy[kok;k gks ;k vU; rF; vafdr fd;s gksaA vr% vkjksi i= esa vafdr ;g rF; fd iwoZ dh vk;q fNikdj ukSdjh lsok esa HkrhZ gqvk gS vr% vkjksi izekf.kr gSA** 20. The Disciplinary Authority after giving notice to the petitioner passed order of termination. 21. I have perused the finding given by the inquiry officer. In the finding, it is nowhere concluded that any fraud is committed by the petitioner because the petitioner was minor at the relevant time and in the operative part of the inquiry the inquiry officer opined that in the circumstances it is possible that some facts have been hidden by the petitioner, therefore, the charges are proved. In my opinion, such finding given by the inquiry officer upon presumption is not sustainable in law because for inflicting punishment of dismissal there must be cogent conclusion recorded by the inquiry officer. Admittedly, for admission of minor in the school the parents do the job to fill up application form. The parents are also required to take action for the future-of the children and if anything is done by the parents when the petitioner was a minor, then, the petitioner cannot be held responsible because the prosecution has not proved before the inquiry officer that the petitioner obtained appointment while filing forged documents. The allegation is that qualification of VIII was obtained by the petitioner from one school and, thereafter, again the petitioner was admitted in another school in VII Class and he, again, obtained qualification of VIII Class while changing his date of birth. 22. In my opinion, at the time of taking admission again how it can be assumed that said admission was taken by the petitioner so as to get appointment in future on the basis of changed date of birth; meaning thereby, the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punishment is based upon presumption and, so also, for the act not even committed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the qualification of VIII Class was acquired by the petitioner from Sri Parswanath Upper Primary School, Merta Road which is evident from the statement of PW.2 Vijay Singh who produced entire record before the inquiry officer, therefore, in my opinion, the punishment awarded against the petitioner is against the principles of natural justice. 23. Admittedly, the qualification of VIII Class was acquired by the petitioner from Sri Parswanath Upper Primary School, Merta Road which is evident from the statement of PW.2 Vijay Singh who produced entire record before the inquiry officer, therefore, in my opinion, the punishment awarded against the petitioner is against the principles of natural justice. 23. It is relevant to observe here that there is no allegation in the inquiry report that the petitioner has fabricated any document or obtained appointment fraudulently on the basis of forged document; more so, the contention of the petitioner with regard to having passed VIII Class qualification from Sri Parswanath Upper Primary School, Merta Road is confirmed by the Head Master of the school, Vijay Singh, PW.2. Therefore, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not sustainable in law; More so, it is against principles of natural justice. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the inquiry officer, Disciplinary Authority, so also, appellate and reviewing authorities have failed to apply mind towards the aforesaid facts and took action against the petitioner for dismissal from service. In my opinion, the orders passed by the respondents deserve to be quashed. 25. In the result, therefore, this writ petition is allowed. All the three impugned order dated 16.8.2002 (Annex.11), order dated 20.11.2002 (Annex. 12) and order dated 29.5.2003 (Annex.13) are hereby quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner will be entitled for 50% back wages only for the period he remained out of service.