JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order Annex.3 dated 26.4.20 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing upon the petitioner penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect and the order Annex.6 dated 15.12.2011 passed by the appellate authority whereby the order dated 26.4.20 was upheld. 3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner having been appointed as a Medical Officer in the Department of Medical and Health, State of Rajasthan, was holding the post of Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Akkasar, District Bikaner in the year 2009. He was served with a memorandum along with a charge-sheet dated 4.6.2009 (Annex.1) under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, referred to herein after as the Rules of 1958) issued by the disciplinary authority being the Director (Public Health), Medical and Health Services, Jaipur. He was served with a memorandum along with a charge-sheet dated 4.6.2009 (Annex.1) under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, referred to herein after as the Rules of 1958) issued by the disciplinary authority being the Director (Public Health), Medical and Health Services, Jaipur. The statement of allegations and charge-sheet issued to the petitioner are relevant and material for the disposal of the writ petition and are reproduced herein below for sake of convenience:- vkjksi&fooj.k&i= &&&&&&&&&& vkjksi fooj.k i= fo:) MkW0 euh"k oekZ fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh izHkkjh izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz vDdklj vUrxZr jktLFkku flfoy lsok;sa ( oxhZdj.k fu;aU=.k ,oa vihy ) ds fu;e 1958 ds fu;e 17 ds rgrA &&&&&&&&&& 1- ;g fd MkW0 euh"k oekZ izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz vDdklj ij fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh izHkkjh dh gSfl;r ls dk;Zjr jgrs nkSjku vius eq[;ky; ls vuqifLFkr jgus ,oa fuokl ugha djus ds laca/k esa f'kdk;rs vkus ds dkj.k bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 12283&86 fnukad 25-9-08 tfj;s MkW0 euh"k oekZ fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh izHkkjh izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz vDdklj dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh djus gq, Hkfo"; esa eq[;ky; ij gh fuokl djus dh fgnk;r nh xbZ ijUrq MkW0 oekZ ds }kjk mDr ykijokgh yxkrkj cjrus ds dkj.k mUgsa ekfld cSB dksa ,oa CykWd dh cSBd esa funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA MkW0 oekZ us mDr vknsZ'k@funsZ'kksa dk Li"V :i ls mYya?ku dj vius drZ O; ds izfr f'kfFkyrk@ykijokgh ,oa mnklhurk iznf'kZr djus dk d`R; dkjhr fd;k tkrk jgk gS bl rjg MkW0 euh"k oekZ us mPpkf/kdkjh;ksa ds funsZ'kksa dks njfdukj dj viuh ea'kk ds vuq:i dk;Z dj us ,oa xzkeh.k turk dks ;Fkk le; fpfdRlk lqfo/kk miyC/k djkus esa foQy jgus ,oa viuh gV/kfeZrk ds dkj.k iz'kklu Lrj ls fpfdRlk foHkkx dh Nfo dks /kwfey djus ds dkj.k nks"kh djkj fn;k tkrk gS tSlk fd vkjksi i= esa mYysf[kr gSA eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh chdkusj vkjksi&i= &&&&&&&&&& vkjksi i= fo:) MkW0 euh"k oekZ fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh izHkkjh izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz vDdklj vUrxZr jktLFkku flfoy lsok;sa ( oxhZdj.k fu;aU=.k ,oa vihy ) ds fu;e 1958 ds fu;e 17 ds rgrA &&&&&&&&&& 1 & ;g fd MkW0 euh"k oekZ fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh izHkkjh izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz vDdklj ij fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh izHkkjh dh gSfl;r ls dk;Zjr jgrs nkSjku vius eq[;ky; ls vuqifLFkr jgdj@fuokl ugha djds xzkeh.k turk dks ;Fkk le; fpfdRlk lqfo/kk miyC/k djk us ls oafpr j[kus ,oa iz'kklu Lrj ij fpfdRlk foHkkx dh Nfo dks /kwfey djus ds nks"kh gS tSlk fd vkjksi fooj.k i= esa mYysf[kr gSA eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh chdkusj 4. By way of the charges levelled against the petitioner, it was alleged that the petitioner in the capacity of Medical Officer, Public Health Center, Akkasar was guilty of frequent absence from the headquarters. Complaints were received regarding him not being available at headquarters. A show cause notice dated 25.9.2008 was issued to the petitioner and he was instructed to remain 10 at headquarters in future but despite that the petitioner continued his negligent attitude towards duties. Thereupon, he was reprimanded in the monthly meetings and block meetings. The petitioner disobeyed the orders/ directions of his superiors and was performing his duties in negligent and slack fashion. It was further alleged that by acting in such a manner, the petitioner had disobeyed the orders of his senior officer and did not perform the duties assigned to him properly and failed to provide medical facilities to the rural public and by his adamant attitude, he managed to lower the image of health department in the public at large. 5. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid memorandum of allegations and charges on 4.7.2009 and claimed that he had never committed any slackness or negligence in the performance of duties. The allegation regarding absence from headquarters was incorrect. He was regularly available at the headquarters and whenever, he left the headquarters, it was after due permission of the Chief Medical Officer, Kolayat. No villager had ever made any complaint against the petitioner. Thus, he prayed that the charges be dropped. 6. The petitioner was provided an opportunity of hearing by the disciplinary authority being Director, Medical and Health Services. The Director passed the order Annex.3 dated 26.4.20 holding that the charges were found proved against the petitioner and a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed on him. 7. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 26.4.20 , the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate authority by order Annex.6 dated 15.12.2011 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner and upheld the order imposing penalty. It is relevant to mention here that whilst deciding the appeal, the appellate authority mentioned in its order that the review application preferred by the petitioner was considered and was not fit to be accepted and there was no justification to interfere with the order imposing penalty. 8. It is relevant to mention here that whilst deciding the appeal, the appellate authority mentioned in its order that the review application preferred by the petitioner was considered and was not fit to be accepted and there was no justification to interfere with the order imposing penalty. 8. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the validity and correctness of the aforesaid orders. 9. A joint reply has been filed to the writ petition by all the 4 respondents namely, the respondents no.1 & 3 being represented by the Medical & Health Department and the respondent no.4 being the Department of Personnel. The averments made in the writ petition have been generally denied in the reply and it has been stated that the petitioners allegation that the order imposing penalty was passed without application of mind is perse unfounded. It is further claimed in the reply that the petitioner is guilty of much graver delinquencies which are established and proved by the complaints made against him which have been revealed by communication Annex.R/1 forwarded by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bikaner. It has been claimed in the reply that the deliveries/births of the children took place at homes but the petitioner fraudulently showed them to have taken place at the hospital. A document Annex.R/2 has been filed on the record to show that the order dated 15.12.2011 passed by the appellate authority was rectified and the word review occurring in the order was substituted by the word appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the show cause notice and the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner were baseless and bereft of any material particulars. He urged that no specific set of dates was mentioned in the charge-sheet as to when the petitioner remained absent from duty or was negligent in the performance thereof. He submits that as the charges were absolutely vague and uncertain and the petitioner specifically denied the same, the disciplinary authority was required to collect positive material in support of the charges before holding the petitioner guilty and imposing punishment upon him. He submits that the impugned orders suffer from total non-application of mind and have been passed in total and gross violation of the principles of natural justice and thus, are liable to be set aside. He submits that the impugned orders suffer from total non-application of mind and have been passed in total and gross violation of the principles of natural justice and thus, are liable to be set aside. He relies on the following decisions in support of his arguments and contends that the writ petition deserves to be accepted and the impugned order deserves to be quashed:- (1) Anant R. Kulkarni. v. Y.P. Education Society and ors. reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515 . (2) Dharamveer v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2005(5) RDD 1219 (Raj.) . 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. They urge that not only the petitioner was found responsible and guilty of the charges leveled against him, numerous other complaints of fraud and misconduct were also received against him. Thus, this Court should be loath from interfering in the impugned orders. They submit that the disciplinary authority and appellate authority found the charges established after due application of mind to the material available on the record and thus, the impugned orders do not call for interference. They, therefore, pray that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the material available on the record as well as the impugned orders. 13. Suffice it to say, that from a bare look at the memorandum of allegations and the charges leveled against the petitioner, it is evident that the facts narrated therein are absolutely vague and ambiguous. No date has been specified in the charge as to when the petitioner remained absent from the headquarters or was slack or negligent in performing his duties. As a matter of fact, if the charge-sheet is seen, it would be evident that even before issuing the same, the disciplinary authority, had already made up his mind to punish the petitioner. The last 4 lines of the charge-sheet read as below:- " MkW0 euh"k oekZ us mPpkf/kdkjh;ksa ds funsZ'kksa dks njfdukj dj viuh ea'kk ds vuq:i dk;Z djus ,oa xzkeh.k turk dks ;Fkk le; fpfdRlk lqfo/kk miyC/k djkus esa foQy jgus ,oa viuh gV/kfeZrk ds dkj.k iz'kklu Lrj ls fpfdRlk foHkkx dh Nfo dks /kwfey djus ds dkj.k nks"kh djkj fn;k tkrk gS tSlk fd vkjksi i= esa mYysf[kr gSA " 14. Thus, it is evident that the so-called enquiry conducted to punish the petitioner by order Annex.3 was totally farcical. The Director had already taken a decision and was pre-determined to punish the petitioner. Thus, there could not have been any fair enquiry thereafter. The order Annex.3 whereby the penalty was imposed on the petitioner is also vague, laconic and apparently was passed with total non-application of mind. The disciplinary authority did not refer to even a single document whilst reaching to the conclusion of guilt against the petitioner. Even though the disciplinary proceedings were undertaken for minor penalty under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, the department was under an obligation to place on record the basic material and documents so as to justify the charges. The delinquent who faces the consequence of the enquiry has to be informed of the specific charges which he has to answer in order to defend himself. As has been noted above, the charge-sheet served to the petitioner is absolutely vague and uncertain and is bereft of any particulars and, therefore, it was impossible for the petitioner to have defended himself. Rather, this Court has no hesitation in holding that no enquiry could have been initiated on the basis of such vague and uncertain charges. The charge against the petitioner was in three parts; (i) absence from headquarters, (ii) slackness & negligence in performance of duties and (iii) disobedience of the orders of the superior officers. Not even a single instance or date is cited in the memorandum of charges or the order imposing penalty as to when the petitioner committed the above delinquencies. That apart, this Court has already noticed that the disciplinary authority whilst issuing the charge-sheet, had already determined in advance that the petitioner was guilty. Thus, the result of the proceedings was a forgone conclusion and the result of the so-called enquiry was just an empty formality. As a consequence, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders are totally laconic, arbitrary and were passed with a total non-application of mind and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 15. Apart from the above, the appellate authority too acted with non-application of mind while upholding the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority. As a consequence, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders are totally laconic, arbitrary and were passed with a total non-application of mind and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 15. Apart from the above, the appellate authority too acted with non-application of mind while upholding the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority. Though in the preceding part of the appellate order, it was noted that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order imposing penalty but thereafter, the appellate authority proceeded to decide the matter as if it was deciding a review petition. The appellate authority whilst deciding the appeal did not refer to any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal. The rectification Annex.R/2 is an action which apparently was taken after the service of the notice of the writ petition. 16. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The orders Annex.3 dated 26.4.20 and Annex.6 dated 15.12.2011 are quashed with all consequential benefits. 17. No order as to costs.Writ Appeal Allowed. *******