ORDER : The present appeal arising from order dated 12.08.2015 allowing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.664 of 2003 is barred by delay of 270 days. The Learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination dated 10.08.1999 as affirmed in appeal dated 08.04.2002 primarily on the ground that the departmental proceedings had not been held in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules'). 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Respondent was a Patwari. He submitted incorrect reports with regard to forest lands, small patch lands leading to illegal allotments causing unlawful gain by abuse of power and corresponding loss to the Government. The Respondent had admitted the charges. Any procedural irregularity in conduct of the departmental proceedings was therefore not relevant as no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the Respondent. Admitted charges need not to be proved. The Respondent never filed his reply to the charges. His statement was recorded on 11.06.1998. The Disciplinary Authority after full application of mind had concurred with the enquiry report. Due opportunity of appeal has also been availed. The fact that each of the reports which formed a charge may have also been the subject matter of challenge by the State before the Commissioner and in appeal before the Board of Revenue unsuccessfully is not relevant so long as the reports were wrong and have been acknowledged by the Respondent to have been prepared and signed by him. The Respondent had been subjected to more than one departmental proceeding which reflects his habit of indiscipline. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that he never admitted the charges but only his signatures upon the reports. The finding of the Learned Single Judge that there never was a departmental proceeding held in accordance with law calls for no interference. The punishment therefore stands vitiated. If the very orders which were subject matter of the charges were tested for their correctness, legality and validity at the behest of the State before the Commissioner and in appeal before the Board of Revenue who in exercise of statutory powers upheld their validity the charges themselves were non-est. 4. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 5. A departmental proceeding commences upon issuance of charge sheet. The delinquent then files his reply. 4. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 5. A departmental proceeding commences upon issuance of charge sheet. The delinquent then files his reply. If the charges are admitted nothing further is required and there may be no need to hold departmental proceedings. Admitting the signature does not amount to an admission that the reports were wrong. Even if the delinquent does not appear after notice and does not file reply yet the onus to prove charges in accordance with law rests on the department. The charges have to be proved by the Presenting officer along with documentary and oral evidence. After the charges are established in this manner the delinquent is required to furnish his defence and lead evidence. 6. The Enquiry Officer has a neutral role akin to that of a Judge. He is then required to apply his mind to the evidence led by the parties their arguments and on an analysis of the same record his own reasons whether the charges had been proved or not. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter proceeds in accordance with law either by accepting the enquiry report, issuing a second show cause notice followed by an order of punishment or exoneration as the case may be. 7. This procedure also finds statutory incorporation in Rule 16. Nomination of a Presenting Officer is provided in Rule 16-V. Rule 16-VI requires the Presenting Officer to submit the list of witnesses and documents. The Enquiry Officer then allows the Presenting Officer examination in chief including that of other witnesses followed by cross examination by the delinquent. The Enquiry Officer can also put questions to the witnesses from both sides. Rule 16-VII provides that after conclusion of the enquiry the Enquiry Officer shall prepare a report, record its findings on each charge together its reasons for the same. It is therefore manifest that if reasons are to be recorded there has to be analysis and discussion of the respective claims and denials as also the evidence in support of the same. 8. If the Enquiry Officer is a neutral person akin to that of a Judge he cannot step into the shoes of the Presenting Officer assuming the role of Judge and executioner both. 8. If the Enquiry Officer is a neutral person akin to that of a Judge he cannot step into the shoes of the Presenting Officer assuming the role of Judge and executioner both. In the present case, a bare reading of the enquiry report reveals that the Presenting Officer only asked for certain documents to be called for on which the Respondent admitted his signature. Admission of the signature does not amount to admission of the contents and it cannot be held that the charges stood proved on that ground. The documents have not been proved by the Presenting Officer. There is not a whisper in the enquiry report what may or may not have been argued by the Presenting Officer with regard to the allegations. In other words, the Enquiry Officer stepped into the shoes of the Presenting Officer to examine the defence of the Respondent vis-a-vis the charges. No list of witnesses or oral evidence was led by the department before the Enquiry Officer. In (2008) 8 SCC 236 (State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh) the observations with regard to the procedure to be followed in a departmental proceeding were noticed as follows :- "15. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge : (i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the enquiry officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the enquiry officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him….." 9. We therefore find no reason to arrive at any different conclusion than that of the Learned Single Judge that there had never been a departmental proceeding against the Respondent in accordance with law. 10. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him….." 9. We therefore find no reason to arrive at any different conclusion than that of the Learned Single Judge that there had never been a departmental proceeding against the Respondent in accordance with law. 10. In normal course if an order of punishment is held to be bad because of a faulty departmental proceeding, the matter ought to be remanded to proceed afresh from the stage of the irregularity. In the present case, the irregularity is from the very inception itself. Further more the Respondent was terminated as far back on 10.08.1999. He has already crossed the age of superannuation during the pendency of the matter. Last but not least, the correctness and legality of the orders and reports submitted by him and which formed the basis of the charges has been tested at the behest of the State and approved both by the Commissioner and in appeal by the Board of Revenue. The charges in the peculiar facts of the case therefore themselves become non-est. 11. We find no reason to interfere under appeal. Delay is condoned and the appeal is dismissed.