JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 26.08.2002 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed and the order dated 03.01.2001 passed by the appellants has been declared invalid and they have been directed to make payment of a sum of Rs. 49,879/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to the plaintiff. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiff Kamal Singh filed a suit for declaration and recovery of a sum of Rs. 49,879/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum against the defendants, inter alia, with the averments that plaintiff was in service of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur ('the Board') and retired from service on 31.07.1999; during service, the plaintiff was given a charge-sheet dated 04.08.1997, wherein, an inquiry under Regulation 6 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, was initiated, which was replied by the plaintiff on 12.09.1997 and whereafter the plaintiff has been held guilty and, consequently, by order dated 03.01.2001 an order has been passed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 49,879/- from the plaintiff; it was indicated that one Jodh Singh working as Helper-I was posted at Devgarh of Kankroli Division and his date of birth in the service book was recorded as 05.05.1947 and he was retired on 31.03.1988; the plaintiff was posted at Kankroli as Assistant Engineer (O & M), before which, the date of birth of of said Jodh Singh was recorded in the service book and according to which he was to retire in the year 2005; in the year 1976 a complaint had been received by the then Assistant Engineer - R.L. Bangad that Jodh Singh had got incorrect date of birth recorded in the service book, which letter was placed by R.L. Bangad in the personal file, alongwith the said letter there was no document, by which, the date of birth could be treated as incorrect; since 1976 several persons remained as Assistant Engineer and no action was taken on the complaint received in the year 1976 and said Jodh Singh was paid salary for the period June, 1982 to March, 1988 after taking work/services from him, which was quantified at Rs. 73,025/- and the said sum was placed towards advance against each of the Assistant Engineer, who was posted during the said period bifurcating the same in terms of their periods of posting; it was claimed that the plaintiff could not alter the service record of Jodh Singh and the inquiry officer has held the plaintiff guilty and directed deduction of Rs. 49,879/- from his retiral benefits; the audit party gave its report on 19.09.1992 regarding the date of birth of Jodh Singh; the penalty was questioned; the procedure before the inquiry officer was also questioned; it was claimed that the plaintiff was called for personal hearing before passing of the impugned order by letter dated 04.12.2000 and he was required to remain present on 11.12.2000 at Jaipur, which letter was issued by him on 20.12.2000 on account of nationwide strike by the postal employees, which strike had started on 05.12.2000 and ended on 18.12.2000, whereafter, the plaintiff sent a letter dated 29.12.2000 seeking personal hearing and sent a reminder on 03.02.2001, however, the order had already been passed on 03.01.2001; ultimately, it was prayed that the recovery in pursuance to order dated 03.01.2001 is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and void and sought refund of a sum of Rs. 49,879/- alongwith interest @ 18%. 3. A written statement was filed by the defendants and the averments made in the plaint were denied; reliance was placed on the inquiry report and it was claimed that said Jodh Singh remained in service on account of negligence on part of the officers, who were held guilty; despite calling for personal hearing, the plaintiff did not appear for personal hearing; other officers, who were charged alongwith the plaintiff have not questioned the inquiry and penalty and the plaintiff had alternative remedy by way of appeal under the Regulations, which has not been availed. 4. The trial court framed three issues and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the inquiry initiated was highly belated, the plaintiff was not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and even on merit of the charge, it came to the conclusion that Jodh Singh was paid the salary after taking work from him and, therefore, it cannot be said that it resulted in any loss to the Board and ultimately decreed the suit declaring the penalty order as invalid and ordered the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 49, 879/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing suit i.e. 17.07.2001. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court was not justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was submitted that the negligence of the plaintiff was writ large in not taking cognizance of the complaint, which was available in the service book of the Helper Jodh Singh, which resulted in the loss to the Board and, therefore, the inquiry proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff alongwith other officers, his predecessors in office during the period 1976 to 1988 and after inquiry he was held guilty; adequate opportunity was given by the inquiry officer, however, despite notice, the plaintiff did not appear before the inquiry officer and, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 03.01.2001 was vitiated for any reason and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in decreeing the suit. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment impugned. It was submitted that the action of the appellants is wholly incorrect and erroneous. The so called complaint was received in the year 1976 and no action was taken by any of the predecessors; the Helper was paid the salary after taking work from him and, therefore, it was a case of no loss and, consequently, the appellants were not justified in claiming the salary paid to Jodh Singh as a loss. It was submitted that the decree passed by the trial court does not call for any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 8. It is an admitted fact that the complaint against Jodh Singh Helper-I was received in the year 1976 and the then Assistant Engineer - R.L. Bangad did not take any action on the said complaint and simply placed the same in the service record of Jodh Singh. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 8. It is an admitted fact that the complaint against Jodh Singh Helper-I was received in the year 1976 and the then Assistant Engineer - R.L. Bangad did not take any action on the said complaint and simply placed the same in the service record of Jodh Singh. The date of birth recorded in the service book was 05.05.1947, according to which, he was to retire in the year 2005 and, therefore, during the period 1984 to 1987, when the plaintiff was posted as a Assistant Engineer, under normal circumstances, it was not expected of him to have a look at the said complaint and/or examine the service book from the point of view of scrutinising the date of birth of the said Helper. It is not clear as to what transpired, which prompted action, resulting in the said Helper Jodh Singh retiring on 31.03.1988. However, by order dated 13.03.1990 (Exhibit-2) an order was passed by the Superintending Engineer (U.C.) ordering payment of the amount due and admissible pertaining to Gratuity to said Jodh Singh after placing the amount of salary, bonus and other allowances paid after the actual superannuation date i.e. 31.05.1982 as misc. advance against the Assistant Engineers, who remained posted at Kankroli during the said period. The list included plaintiff Kamal Singh with the amount Rs. 49,879/-, qua the other officers, a sum of Rs. 4,108/- towards D.S. Karmsot, Rs. 5,527/- towards S.S. Rajora, Rs. 13,511/- towards S.L. Agal were ordered. Whereafter the audit officer by his report dated 19.09.1992 addressed to the Superintending Engineer (O & M) reported that the fact of date of birth was in the notice of Mr.R.L. Bangad, but no action was taken to correct the date of birth in the service record, which resulted in over stay of Jodh Singh, for which, the Board had to pay an extra amount of Rs. 97,749.25 p., which amount after bifurcating, according to the service tenure of the Assistant Engineers posted at Kankroli, was put as misc. advance. It was not clear as to how the date of birth was mentioned as 05.05.1947 in service record and, therefore, he directed that investigation be held and action taken against the defaulting officers be intimated to audit. 97,749.25 p., which amount after bifurcating, according to the service tenure of the Assistant Engineers posted at Kankroli, was put as misc. advance. It was not clear as to how the date of birth was mentioned as 05.05.1947 in service record and, therefore, he directed that investigation be held and action taken against the defaulting officers be intimated to audit. Whereafter vide charge-sheet dated 23.08.1997 the inquiry was initiated, which was replied by the plaintiff on 15.09.1997 and the charges were denied. Whereafter, vide letter dated 04.12.2000 (Exhibit-6) the plaintiff was asked to appear before C.M.D., Ajmer Discom for personal hearing on 11.12.2000, to which, a reply (Exhibit-7) dated 29.12.2000 was sent by the plaintiff indicating of receipt of notice dated 04.12.2012 after the date indicated therein had already passed and a reminder dated 03.02.2001 (Exhibit-08) was also sent seeking personal hearing. However, vide order dated 03.01.2001 (Exhibit-8) noticing that the plaintiff did not appear for personal hearing, it was ordered to recover the amount of Rs. 49,879/- from the plaintiff and that the amount be deducted from his pensionary benefits. 9. The sequence of events noticed hereinbefore would reveal that said Jodh Singh was employed with the Board as Helper-I and his date of birth was indicated as 05.05.1947. Some complaint was received in the year 1976 by the then Assistant Engineer R.L. Bangad, who for the reasons best known to him merely filed the said complaint in the service book of the said Helper. Whereafter the several officers remained posted as Assistant Engineer and the plaintiff remained posted from July, 1984 to 1987. Whereafter it appears that some action was taken against said Jodh Singh and it was found that he should have been retired on 31.05.1982 and was, therefore, retired on 31.03.1988, when in fact according to the date of birth as recorded he was to retire in the year 2005. The charge-sheet was issued in the year 1997 i.e. after a passage of almost nine years from the date the said Jodh Singh was retired and after 12 years from the date the plaintiff was transferred from the said Division on the following allegation:- "Statement of allegation against Sh. Kamal Singh Jain, AEN. now XEn. - Allegation No.1 That said Sh. Kamal Singh Jain, AEN during the period from July, 84 to July, 87, one Sh. Jodh Singh S/o Sh. Kamal Singh Jain, AEN. now XEn. - Allegation No.1 That said Sh. Kamal Singh Jain, AEN during the period from July, 84 to July, 87, one Sh. Jodh Singh S/o Sh. Nathu Singh, Helper-Ist in Kankroli sub-division was to retire from the Board's services on 31.05.82 but he was not retired on the date of his superannuation. The Supdtg. Engineer (UC), Rs. EB, Udaipur held Sh. Kamal Singh Jain, AEN responsible for this lapse and debited the sum of Rs. 49879/- against Sh. Kamal Singh Jain, AEN of pay and allowances paid to Sh. Jodh Singh as misc. advance against his name. Shri Kamal Singh Jain, AEN is thus responsible for not retiring Shri Jodh Singh, Helper-Ist on the date of his superannuation, which is gross mis-conduct/irregularity as is liable for punishment. By order, sd/- (Usha Sharma) Secretary." 10. By order dated 03.01.2001 plaintiff has been punished with recovery as noticed hereinbefore. It was, inter alia, observed as under:- "After careful consideration of the relevant records/documents connected and reply of delinquent the disciplinary authority i.e. CMD, Ajmer DISCOM, has observed that "One Sh. Jodh Singh who was required to be retired from the services on 31.05.82 could not be retired due to slackness of concerned officers and he remained to continue in service and later on in March 1988, he was retired when the matter brought to the notices of the concerned Officers. As a result of non retirement of Sh. Jodh Singh he remained in service and a sum of Rs. 97,749.25 was paid to him on account of salary and others allowances. CMD Ajmer DISCOM has also observed that had delinquents taken action in time regarding retirement of this employees, he could not have over stayed in the job. Thus Sh. Kamal Singh Jain Executive Engineer (Retired) is responsible for the stay of Sh. Jodha Singh on duty." 11. 97,749.25 was paid to him on account of salary and others allowances. CMD Ajmer DISCOM has also observed that had delinquents taken action in time regarding retirement of this employees, he could not have over stayed in the job. Thus Sh. Kamal Singh Jain Executive Engineer (Retired) is responsible for the stay of Sh. Jodha Singh on duty." 11. A bare reading of the charge-sheet and the finding of the inquiry officer would reveal that whereas the statement of allegation alleged that Superintending Engineer (UC) had held the plaintiff responsible for lapse and he was responsible for not retiring Jodh Singh on the date of his superannuation, which is gross misconduct, irregularity and is liable for punishment, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that Jodh Singh could not be retired due to slackness of concerned officers, as a result of which, he remained in service and a sum of Rs. 97,749.35 p. was paid to him on account of salary and other allowances and if the delinquents had taken action in time, he could not have over stayed in the job and, therefore, the plaintiff was responsible for the over stay of Jodh Singh on duty and went on to impose punishment of recovery. It would be seen that while the allegations were regarding gross misconduct/irregularity, the disciplinary authority has failed to record any finding of misconduct and/or irregularity. Besides the above, there is not even a finding of any loss to the Board on account of alleged over stay of Jodh Singh in service. The order, thus passed by the disciplinary authority was on its face laconic and did not even record the fundamental findings, which were required for holding the plaintiff guilty of any misconduct. The finding of slackness was not even a part of the charge. 12. The order, thus passed by the disciplinary authority was on its face laconic and did not even record the fundamental findings, which were required for holding the plaintiff guilty of any misconduct. The finding of slackness was not even a part of the charge. 12. Beside the above, it was proved on record that the notice dated 04.12.2000 (Exhibit-6) fixing the date of 11.12.2000 for personal hearing was received by the plaintiff on 20.12.2000 and a letter dated 29.12.2000 was sent by him seeking another date for personal hearing on account of late receipt of notice and a specific reason was indicated that there was a strike of postal employees from the period 05.12.2000 to 18.12.2000, there is no denial that the said Exhibit-7 written by the plaintiff was not received by the respondents, however, the order imposing punishment (Exhibit-9) dated 03.01.2001 was passed, which is utterly in disregard to the principles of natural justice as the plaintiff was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. 13. The fact of delay in initiating the inquiry proceedings also assumes significance in view of the fundamental fact as to lack of any loss to the Board on account of over stay of said Jodh Singh in service. Further, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff was not the appointing authority so as to alter the date of birth in the service book and it is not even the allegation against the plaintiff that despite he being aware of the complaint against Jodh Singh, he did not take any action. Merely because complaint was received in the year 1976 and the same was placed in the service book, the subsequent officers, who remained in office post 1976 cannot be accused of slackness merely because no action was taken on the said complaint in absence of a specific allegation that despite being aware of such pending complaint, no action was taken. 14. 14. This Court in S.K. Pareekh v. Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik Gramin Bank : 1994 (1) RLR 629 even quashed a charge-sheet issued to Manager in a Branch of the Bank against whom allegations were regarding advancing loans in violation of Rules as there was no allegation that any loss was caused to Bank on account of such advances and the charges related to more than 11 years old period holding the same to be against interest of justice to allow the disciplinary inquiry to continue. 15. In view of the above discussion, no exception can be taken to the findings recorded by the trial court on both the issues. The trial court was justified in deciding the issues in favour of the plaintiff. 16. In the result, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******