JUDGMENT 1. - The subject matter of challenge is the judgment and order dated 8.2.2010 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2691/1996 adjudging the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules') and consequential dismissal of the respondent/writ petitioner from service, to be invalid. 2. We have heard Mr.Dinesh Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants/writ respondents and Ms.Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. 3. Facts in brief, necessary to be noticed, are that the respondent/writ petitioner, while posted as constable in CID, Crime Branch, Rajasthan, Jaipur, under the appellants/writ respondents, was subjected to departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules, and in connection therewith, was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.8.1993. Subsequent thereto, a memorandum of charges was issued on 20.8.1993 together with statement of allegations in support thereof. The respondent/writ petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges, whereafter the Disciplinary Authority appointed, in succession, enquiry officers from time to time. The respondent/writ petitioner was, during the pendency of the departmental enquiry, reinstated in service without prejudice thereto (departmental enquiry). According to the respondent/writ petitioner, the Enquiry Officer last appointed, proceeded ex parte against him without however, giving proper notice of the dates thereof and recorded evidence of the witnesses of the disciplinary authority and he was not afforded any opportunity of cross examining them. He has further pleaded that no Presenting Officer was appointed on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer acted in the said capacity as well. Eventually, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report recording a finding that the charges levelled against the respondent/writ petitioner had been proved, whereafter according to him (respondent/writ petitioner), the Disciplinary Authority without issuing any notice to him alongwith a copy of the enquiry report or affording any opportunity of hearing to him, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 31.8.1995. The respondent/writ petitioner has alleged that even the order of dismissal did not carry with it the report of the Enquiry Officer. As his departmental appeal failed, he sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for redress. 4. The appellants/writ respondents, in their reply, endorsed the validity of the disciplinary proceedings contending that the same had been conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. As his departmental appeal failed, he sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for redress. 4. The appellants/writ respondents, in their reply, endorsed the validity of the disciplinary proceedings contending that the same had been conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. They asserted that the respondent/writ petitioner wilfully avoided the proceedings, inspite of due notice thereof, and that therefore, his plea of want of fairness in action was untenable. According to the appellants, the omission to furnish copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer to him per se did not invalidate the proceedings, in absence of any proof of prejudice arising therefrom. The learned Single Judge however, on a consideration of the pleaded averments and the documents on record, returned a finding that the disciplinary proceedings had been held in utter disregard of the procedure contained in Rule 16 of the Rules. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned Single Judge recorded as follows:- (a) The lastly appointed Enquiry Officer had recorded the evidence of the witnesses of the Disciplinary Authority without issuing notice to the petitioner and without passing any appropriate order to hold the enquiry ex parte. The appellants, in reply, have merely denied this assertion, without disclosing the dates and other particulars as to when notice(s) had been issued/served on the respondent/writ petitioner. (b) The respondent/writ petitioner asserted that the Disciplinary Authority had failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 16(5) of the Rules by not appointing the Present Officer, and that, the Enquiry Officer had assumed the role of Prosecuting Officer, and that too, in his absence. The appellants have, in reply, only pleaded that no prejudice had been caused to him on account of examination of the witnesses of the Disciplinary Authority by the Enquiry Officer. (c) The respondent/writ petitioner has pleaded that the Disciplinary Authority had neither issued any show cause notice to him nor had forwarded a copy of the enquiry report as opposed to the prescriptions of sub-rule (10) of Rule 16 of the Rules, and that, the Disciplinary Authority before imposing the penalty had not supplied the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charges. The appellants, in reply, have only pleaded that the Disciplinary Authority had taken into consideration the enquiry report and all relevant materials, including past service record of the respondent/writ petitioner, and had determined and imposed the penalty. The appellants, in reply, have only pleaded that the Disciplinary Authority had taken into consideration the enquiry report and all relevant materials, including past service record of the respondent/writ petitioner, and had determined and imposed the penalty. Further, mere omission to issue the show cause notice or to furnish the enquiry report per se did not prejudice him. (d) The respondent/writ petitioner had submitted a representation before the Disciplinary Authority prior to the passing of the order of penalty, which was forwarded to the Enquiry Officer, and on obtaining comments from him (Enquiry Officer), the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of penalty. The appellants, in reply, contended that the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner had submitted representation, firmly attests against any prejudice suffered by him by the omission to furnish a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report. (e) Though charge No.3 was not found to have been proved by the Enquiry Officer as averred by the respondent/writ petitioner, it was held to be proved by the Disciplinary Authority without first issuing notice of disagreement to him (respondent/writ petitioner). To this, the appellants have averred that mere failure to furnish a copy of the enquiry report did not ipso facto render the disciplinary proceedings illegal, as the respondent/writ petitioner had failed to prove any prejudice thereby. 5. The learned Single Judge, by taking note of the contentions of the respondent/writ petitioner individually and collectively, concluded that had he been furnished with the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer, he could have highlighted the procedural and other illegalities vitiating in the disciplinary proceeding, and thus, the omission to do so (furnishing a copy of the enquiry report) did patently result in his prejudice. The learned Single Judge, in particular, also referred to the omission on the part of the appellants to issue notice on the point of disagreement and reasons in support thereof qua the Enquiry Officer vis-a-vis charge No.3. The omission to appoint the Presenting Officer and the consequent conduct of the departmental proceedings by the Enquiry Officer as the Presenting Officer while examining the witnesses, was also noticed. That the departmental Appellate Authority did not apply his mind to these violations, was also noted by the learned Single Judge. The omission to appoint the Presenting Officer and the consequent conduct of the departmental proceedings by the Enquiry Officer as the Presenting Officer while examining the witnesses, was also noticed. That the departmental Appellate Authority did not apply his mind to these violations, was also noted by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge recorded as well that no material had been placed to demonstrate that notice had been issued to the respondent/writ petitioner to the effect that the disciplinary proceedings would be conducted ex parte and/or of the dates on which its witnesses would be examined. The disciplinary proceeding was therefore, held to be violative of the Rules and also of the principles of natural justice. 6. Mr.Yadav has urged that the respondent/writ petitioner was a habitual absentee and he having been dismissed from service on proved charge of continuous abstention from work, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with. The learned counsel has argued that the respondent/writ petitioner having deliberately avoided the disciplinary proceedings, his plea of violation of the principles of natural justice ought to have been rejected in limine. Mr.Yadav has reiterated that mere omission to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the respondent/writ petitioner, in the attendant facts and circumstances, did not prejudice him in any manner. According to the learned counsel, the respondent/writ petitioner, at all relevant times, was a member of a disciplined force and as the Disciplinary Authority being satisfied that he was guilty of habitual absentism, did rightly impose the penalty of dismissal from service. 7. As against this Ms.Saraf has argued that it being apparent on the face of the records that the procedural safeguards as engrafted in Rule 16 of the Rules have been blatantly contravened on more than one count, the learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with the disciplinary proceedings, and that, the appeal ought to be dismissed. According to her, the pleadings of the appellants failed to dislodge the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner vis-a-vis their failure to comply with the imperative requirements of Rule 16, and the plea of want of prejudice raised on their behalf is frivolous . 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, we find ourselves in respectful agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 9. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, we find ourselves in respectful agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 9. Having regard to the entire gamut of facts constituting the disciplinary proceedings, we are of the unhesitant opinion, in view of the rival pleadings and the other materials on record, that the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge leading to the determination of invalidity thereof (departmental proceedings) cannot be brushed aside as absurd, illogical or wholly implausible. The plea of want of prejudice, in our comprehension, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is wholly belied by the successive departures made by the appellants from the procedural safeguards as enshrined in Rule 16 of the Rules. 10. Noticeably, the original records of the disciplinary proceeding had not been laid before the Court to demonstrate the reasons, if any, for frequent change of the enquiry officers, conduct of the proceedings ex parte and omission to appoint a Presenting Officer to present the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. Aside the pleaded averment of the appellants that the respondent/writ petitioner had wilfully abandoned the disciplinary proceedings, there is no overwhelming material to establish the authenticity and correctness of this plea. It does not stand to reason that if an employee is aware of the initiation or continuance of a disciplinary proceeding against him/her, he/she would on his/her own peril opt not to participate therein. The failure on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to issue a notice to the respondent/writ petitioner acquainting him with the reasons of disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on charge No.3 as well as the non-furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report to him before recording the penalty of dismissal, it is no longer res integra, are apparent and incurable violations of Rule 16 of the Rules. 11. On a cumulative consideration of all relevant aspects, we are inclined to endorse the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the violations and deviations touching upon the various stages of the disciplinary proceedings, did cause serious prejudice to the respondent/writ petitioner. 12. 11. On a cumulative consideration of all relevant aspects, we are inclined to endorse the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the violations and deviations touching upon the various stages of the disciplinary proceedings, did cause serious prejudice to the respondent/writ petitioner. 12. In this view of the matter, we see no cogent or convincing reason to differ from the conclusion recorded in the impugned judgment and order that the disciplinary proceeding held against the respondent/writ petitioner is invalid due to proved violations of the prescriptions of Rule 16 of the Rules. The order of penalty of dismissal and the decision of the departmental authority, in our estimate, have been rightly interfered with. 13. The above determination notwithstanding, we are however of the view, having regard to the order of dismissal dated 31.8.1995, that the respondent/writ petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service and 50% of the back wages. Needless to say, he would be otherwise entitled to continuity in service between the date of his dismissal and reinstatement for all other purposes. Having regard to the date of dismissal i.e.31.8.1995, we are not inclined to grant full back wages to the respondent/writ petitioner, who admittedly did not render any service from such dismissal to his reinstatement. 14. The appeal is thus disposed of, in the above terms.Appeal Disposed of. *******