JUDGMENT 1. - In challenge is judgment and order dated 10.11.2008 passed is S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3817/2002 rejecting the writ appellant's assailment of the disciplinary action of recording "Censure", on the completion of proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1958. (in short, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). 2. We have heard Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. I.S. Pareek, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The writ appellant while serving as Constable under the respondents was on Train Guard Duty on 22.8.1999 on train No. 4860 UP Intercity Express from jodhpur to Jaipur and returned by the same train on 24.8.1999 being No. 4859 UP from Jaipur to jodhpur. He was served thereafter with the memorandum of charge vide letter dated 15.2.2000 on the following grounds: " vki o"kZ 1999 esa thvkjih Fkkuk tks/kiqj esa dkfu0 ds in ij rSukr Fks vki fnukad 22-8-1999 dks le; 10-15 ih0,e0 ij V~su 4860 vi bUVj lhVh ,Dl0 tks/kiqj ls t;iqj esa vki V~su xkMZ M~;Vh esa x;s Fks o fnukad 24-8-1999 dks V~su ua0 4859 vi esa t;iqj ls tks/kiqj V~su xkMZ M~;wVh esa okil vk;sA Mh0lh0Vh0 vkbZ0 tks/kiqj e.My ds vkdfLed pSafdx djus vki o jke nhu dkfu0 ds lkFk 13 ;k=h fcuk fVdV ;k=k djrs ik;s x;s ftldk Mh0lh0Vh0vkbZ0 }kjk tkpZ fd;k x;k] mDr rF; dh tkap djokbZ xbZ rks pktZ jlhn dh QksVksa LVsV izfr ij thvkjih ds lkFk ( ohFk thvkjih ) fy[kk gqvk gS o tkap vf/kdkjh us Hkh vkidk vkpj.k lafnX/k ekuk gSA vkius viuh M~;wVh ds le; vius lkFk fcuk fVdV ;k=h yk;s tkus dk dk;Z ?kksj vuq'kklughurk dk izrhd gSA vkius ;k=h pSfdax ikVhZ dk lg;ksx Hkh ugha fd;k tks viuh M~;wVh ds izfr ykijokgh dk ?kksrd gSA vkidk mijksDr of.kZr d'R; drZO; foeq[krk] LosPNk pkfjrk] vuq'kklughurk dk izrhd gksdj n.Muh; gSA " 4. It was alleged in substance that on checking it was found that the writ appellant had permitted 13 passengers to travel without ticket and they were confronted by the DCTI and the fare was realised from them. The writ appellant was charged with lack of devotion to duty, casualness and indiscipline. The forwarding letter indicated that an inquiry under Rule 17 of the Rules was contemplated. 5. The writ appellant was charged with lack of devotion to duty, casualness and indiscipline. The forwarding letter indicated that an inquiry under Rule 17 of the Rules was contemplated. 5. The writ appellant submitted his reply in which he denied the allegation in categorical terms and instead claimed to have assisted the DCTI and the Railway Staff in realising the Railway Fare from the errant passengers. According to him he also lodged a report of the incident to the appropriate authority. 6. The Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 29.2.2000 on an analysis of material on record concluded thus: " vkjksi dks fo"k; esa gqbZ tkap o c;kukr ls ,sls rF; izekf.kr ugha gq;s gS fd okLro esa dkfu0 V~su xkMZ fcuk fVdV ;k=k djk jgs Fksa] ysfdu ifjfLFkfro'k gkykr bl rjg ds gS fd jsyos iqfyl LVkQ ij Hkh fo'okl o vuq'kkflr o dk;Zokgh gksuk vko';d gSA ftlls jsyos iqfyl xyr jkg ij ugha pysA vr% leLr rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, nks"kh vf/kdkjh dkfu0 tLlkjke la[;k 349 dks ,d ifjfuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA lacaf/kr dh izfr;ka nh tkosA " 7. The disciplinary authority though had recorded that the charge against the writ appellant had not been proved however observed that having regard to attendant facts and circumstances some action was called for. On that premise, the writ appellant was imposed with the penalty of censure. It is a matter of record that his main appeal against this disciplinary action was dismissed. On this, he turned to this Court for redress. 8. The learned Single judge, as the impugned judgment and order would reveal proceeded on the basis that the disciplinary authority had found the charge leveled against the writ appellant proved and thus imposed the penalty of censure. That the writ appellant had unsuccessfully appealed before the Appellate Authority and had failed in his endeavour in getting the order reviewed was noted as well. 9. Mr. Joshi, while referring to the conclusion of the disciplinary authority that the charge leveled against the appellant had not been proved has urged that the disciplinary action and the penalty of censure was not called for and thus, the impugned judgment and order being on the face of the record untenable is liable to be interfered with. 9. Mr. Joshi, while referring to the conclusion of the disciplinary authority that the charge leveled against the appellant had not been proved has urged that the disciplinary action and the penalty of censure was not called for and thus, the impugned judgment and order being on the face of the record untenable is liable to be interfered with. According to him, the writ appellant had not at any point of time either admitted the charge or was found to be guilty thereof and thus by no means he could have been punished with any penalty nor any disciplinary action could have been taken. 10. Mr. I.S. Pareek, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that though the charge leveled against writ appellant has not been found proved by the disciplinary authority, in the attendant facts and circumstance, it was considered appropriate by the disciplinary authority to impose the penalty of censure and this Court in the exercise of power of judicial review should not interfere therewith. 11. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, we feel inclined to sustain the challenge laid in the instant appeal. The relevant except of the order dated 29.2.2000 in no uncertain terms reveals that the charge conveyed to the writ appellant vide letter dated 15.2.2000 quoted herein above had not been found to be proved by the disciplinary authority. As the inquiry was under Rule 17 of the Rules, no statement of allegations in support of the charge had been furnished to the writ appellant. The charge per se does not reveal the attendant facts and circumstances on which the disciplinary authority seems to have relied in deciding that some penalty was required to be imposed on the writ appellant. in the face of the categorical denial of the charge by the writ appellant and the finding of the disciplinary authority that the same had not been proved, we are of the opinion that the disciplinary authority could not have penalised the writ appellant. 12. With utmost respect, we find ourselves in disagreement with the finding recorded in the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that the disciplinary authority had concluded that the charge leveled against the writ appellant had been found to be proved. This is not available from the order 29.2.2000 of the disciplinary authority. 12. With utmost respect, we find ourselves in disagreement with the finding recorded in the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that the disciplinary authority had concluded that the charge leveled against the writ appellant had been found to be proved. This is not available from the order 29.2.2000 of the disciplinary authority. in the above view of the matter, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is interfered with. However, noticing the fact that the penalty was imposed way back in the year 2000, we consider it appropriate to make the present determination to be prospective in all respects. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Appeal Allowed. *******