JUDGMENT : 1. In this Civil Special Appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, the Ayurved Department is challenging the judgment dated 14.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 4185/2009 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondents-legal heirs of late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas and quashed the order dated 21.9.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority in the inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the CCA Rules for short) and order dated 5.8.2008 passed by the appellate authority and issued direction to treat delinquent employee late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas in service till his death or the date of retirement on attaining age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. 2. As per brief facts of the case late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas was working on the post of UDC in the Ayurved Department, who expired on 11.3.2009 at Haridawar (Uttarakhand). Late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas was working on the post of UDC since 1969 but in the year 1982 ye was placed under suspension. Tow criminal cases were also registered against him for the allegation of embezzlement of Government money, out of two cases, late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas was acquitted in one case vide judgment dated 28.1.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur while accepting his appeal. After lodging the criminal case, a charge-sheet was served upon late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules in the year 1987 vide charge memorandum dated 5.3.1987. 3. In the charge-sheet, 13 charges were framed against him and all the charges were based upon the acts, which were directly involved and subject matter in the criminal case lodged by the department against him. The charge-sheet was issued on 5.3.1987, but for good five years, no inquiry officer was appointed and vide order dated 24.2.1992 for the first time, inquiry officer was appointed. After 11 years, the inquiry was concluded by the inquiry officer and the inquiry report (Annex.7) dated 15.12.1999 was submitted to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority issued notice to late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas and sought his explanation against the finding given in the inquiry report. Late Sh. After 11 years, the inquiry was concluded by the inquiry officer and the inquiry report (Annex.7) dated 15.12.1999 was submitted to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority issued notice to late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas and sought his explanation against the finding given in the inquiry report. Late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas filed his detailed representation before the disciplinary authority and prayed to exonerate him from the charge levelled against him. 4. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension vide order dated 21.9.2006 and while forfeiting the service benefits of the period of suspension period and passed an order for recovery of an amount of Rs.57605.05/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 21.9.2006 late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 5.8.2008, but unfortunately, late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas died on 11.3.2009 at Haridawara (Uttarakhand). The legal heirs of late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas preferred writ petition before this Court to challenge the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority in the proceedings initiated against him under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. 5. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties, quashed the order of disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and issued direction to treat late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas in service till his death or the date of retirement with all consequential benefits. 6. Learned counsel Dr. Pratistha Dave appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the judgment impugned is contrary to law because the charges against late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas for embezzlement were very serious in nature, therefore, in spite of the fact that he was acquitted from the charges levelled against him in one criminal appeal, there was power with the department to initiate departmental inquiry and to punish the delinquent for alleged misconduct, but learned Single Judge while ignoring the said legal position, quashed the order of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension dated 21.9.2009 and order of the appellate authority dated 5.8.2008 solely on the ground of delay, therefore, the judgment impugned passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that in the inquiry conducted against late Sh. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that in the inquiry conducted against late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas the misconduct was proved, therefore, obviously, for alleged misconduct of embezzlement, disciplinary authority rightly imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension and recovery of Rs.57605.05/- from the amount of gratuity. The alleged misconduct committed by late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas was very serious, therefore, after providing an opportunity of hearing to late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas, the order of penalty was passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of finding given in inquiry report, in which there is no illegality, but learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority contrary to law, therefore, the judgment impugned dated 14.2.2011 may kindly be quashed. No other ground is raised by the counsel for the appellant. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-legal heirs of late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas submits that there is no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge because in the criminal case lodged against late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas he was acquitted in appeal by competent court upon the same set of evidence, therefore, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the learned Single Judge so as to quash the order of disciplinary authority and appellate authority. It is also argued that late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas suffered agony whole of the life because he was placed under suspension in the year 1982 but inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was initiated after five years vide charge memo dated 5.3.1987, thereafter, inquiry officer was appointed on 24.2.1992 who submitted inquiry report on 15.12.1999 and ultimately punishment was imposed on 6.6.2006 and during this period, the delinquent employee suffered mental agony, therefore, it is obvious that for an inquiry which is initiated in the year 1987 final punishment was imposed against the delinquent employee on 6.6.2006, that too, ignoring the fact of acquittal in criminal case contrary to law, therefore, no interference is called for in the judgment impugned. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it emerges from the facts that late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas, husband of the respondent no. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it emerges from the facts that late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas, husband of the respondent no. 1 was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.6.1982 when he was working as Compounder in Ayurvedic Department, thereafter, a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was served upon him on 5.3.1987, after five years and it is very strange that for the said inquiry, inquiry officer was appointed on 24.2.1992, the inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 15.12.1999, but a copy of the same with a notice for demanding explanation was served upon the delinquent on 6.6.2006 and, thereafter, the punishment order for compulsory retirement has been passed on 21.9.2006, for this inordinate delay, no explanation is given by the State in its reply. It is also important to note that in criminal case late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas was acquitted. The learned Single Judge while deciding writ petition held that there is no reason on record to explain why charge-sheet was served after 5 years under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules from the date of placing late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas under suspension and why the inquiry officer was appointed after 5 years in the year 1992 and why the disciplinary authority in spite of submitting inquiry report on 15.12.1999 issued notice for explanation along with copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee on 6.6.2006 after lapse of six and half years. All these facts loudly speaks that there was total inaction on the part of the competent authority for conducting inquiry against the husband of the respondent no. 1. It is also worthwhile to observe that in the criminal case registered against late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas he was acquitted by the competent court and the said fact is not in dispute. 10. In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge for quashing the order of disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority does not require any interference. We have also examined the reason for quashing the order of appellate authority. The learned Single Judge while considering rule 30 of the Rules of 1958 in which there is provision of appeal, considered the order of appellate authority and held that appellate authority acted in most mechanical manner. We have also examined the reason for quashing the order of appellate authority. The learned Single Judge while considering rule 30 of the Rules of 1958 in which there is provision of appeal, considered the order of appellate authority and held that appellate authority acted in most mechanical manner. The learned Single Judge observed in the order that appellate authority nowhere discloses as to how he reached at the conclusion that the disciplinary authority adhered the procedure prescribed for holding the enquiry and what was the material available to establish the facts giving creedal to the findings. The appellate authority was under obligation to examine justification of choosing a specific penalty from amongst various penalties given under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958 and this consideration aforesaid acquires much importance for the reason that the punishment imposed at the one hand must be commensurate to the guilt established and at the same time should be reasonable also. 11. In view of the fact that the learned Single Judge has considered every aspect of the matter to quash the order of disciplinary authority dated 21.9.2006 as also 10 order passed by the appellate authority dated 5.8.2008, therefore, no case is made out for interference in this appeal. However, it is made it clear that all the service benefits shall be paid to the respondent no.1 wife of late Sh. Chandra Mohan Vyas because other legal heirs were major at the time of filing of the writ petition. 12. Hence, this special appeal is hereby dismissed.