ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Jagdish Prasad Verma has approached this Court, assailing the order (Annex.6) dated 13.12.2011, passed by his disciplinary authority, being the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Rajasthan, simultaneously imposing upon him the penalties of recovery of Rs.13,61,065/- and stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. 2. The petitioner, who, at the relevant point of time way, posted as Junior Engineer, in the Indira Gandhi Canal Project under the respondent department was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (for Brevity, hereinafter referred to as "CCA Rules") with the allegation that he was in charge of Stock of T&P goods in the Office of Assistant Engineer, Sub Division-II, TMC Division under the control of Water Courses Division-II, Jaisalmer and while performing such duties, he did not account for stock and material to tune of Rs.13,61,065/- and thereby committed grave misconduct. 3. The Enquiry Officer after holding an enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, submitted an adverse enquiry report against the petitioner. The petitioner was issued a notice along with the copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner's Disciplinary Authority, being the Chief Engineer, thereafter proceeded to pass the order dated 13.12.2011 (Annex.6) imposing upon win the penalties in terms noted above. Being aggrieved of the said imposing penalty order dated 13.12.2011 (Annex.6), the petitioner has approached this Court directly by way of this writ petition claiming that there is a fundamental & incurable lacuna in the impugned order, therefore, the remedy of appeal and review provided under the CCA Rules is not adequate & the petitioner be directly allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court. 4. This Court, whilst entertaining the petitioner's writ petition, passed an interim order dated 25.5.2012 staying the proposed recovery from the petitioner. 5. The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition, wherein, they have endorsed & justified the impugned disciplinary action as well the impugned order imposing penalty upon the petitioner. 6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 7. 5. The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition, wherein, they have endorsed & justified the impugned disciplinary action as well the impugned order imposing penalty upon the petitioner. 6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 7. Shri Pramendra Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the arguments, in addition to the grounds raised in the writ petition, asserted that without prejudice to the other challenges raised in the writ petition against the impugned order, the enquiry report suffers from a fundamental defect of being based on no material whatsoever. He contended that the department did not lead any evidence whatsoever in support of the charges during the course of the enquiry and as such, the enquiry report on the basis whereof, the petitioner has been penalized, has no worth and is inadmissible for all purposes. He thus urged that the order (Annex.6) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which is based on such an illegal and inutile enquiry report, cannot be sustained. 8. Since the argument was purely a legal one, the petitioner's counsel was permitted to raise such argument even though a specific ground to this effect has not been raised in the writ petition. In order to verify the assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court on 6.7.2016, directed Shri K.D. Singh learned Dy.G.C., to keep available the original record of disciplinary proceedings. The record was submitted for perusal on 20.07.2016. The arguments of the learned counsel were heard, the record was perused and the matter was closed for orders. 9. I have carefully perused the original record & the impugned order. 10. Even during the course of the arguments, Shri KD Singh Advocate Government Counsel, with reference to the original record of the disciplinary proceedings, candidly conceded that the department did not lead any evidence whatsoever, in support of the charges. 11. 9. I have carefully perused the original record & the impugned order. 10. Even during the course of the arguments, Shri KD Singh Advocate Government Counsel, with reference to the original record of the disciplinary proceedings, candidly conceded that the department did not lead any evidence whatsoever, in support of the charges. 11. This Court examined an identical controversy in detail in the case of Harak Chand Dangi v. State of Rajasthan & Others (CWP No. 4459/2001) decided on 15.1.2015 and after analysing Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and while placing reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of U.P. & Others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 , this Court held that recording of evidence; oral as well as documentary is mandatory in an enquiry instituted against a delinquent under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. Failure to do so vitiates the entire enquiry proceedings as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority based thereupon. 12. Considering the circumstance that admittedly, the enquiry against the petitioner was held in total contravention of the mandatory requirements of Rule 16 of CCA Rules, & as the department did not lead any evidence in support of the charges during the course of the enquiry, the order imposing penalty passed on the basis of such an illegal, perfunctory & inadmissible enquiry report, which is, admittedly based on no material whatsoever, cannot be sustained. 13. As a consequence of the above discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 13.12.2011 (Annex.6), imposing penalty upon the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities however are permitted to hold a fresh enquiry against the petitioner with strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. No order as to costs.