JUDGMENT 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 23/24-2-2012 imposing punishment of dismissal from service and the order dated 1.11.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal against the order of punishment. A further challenge is made to the order dated 22.5.2013. 2. It is a case where the petitioner was served with charge sheet, containing following charges : 3. The charge sheet was served after preliminary enquiry. The petitioner submitted explanation to the charge sheet, however, finding it to be not satisfactory, Enquiry Officer was appointed. After the enquiry, when the charges were found proved, the petitioner was served with the copy of enquiry report to seek his explanation. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, thus the order of punishment was passed. The petitioner preferred an appeal but it was dismissed finding no merit therein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment as well as the order passed on appeal on the following grounds : (i) A detailed explanation to the charge sheet was submitted by the petitioner. It was not considered before a decision to appoint an Enquiry Officer. (ii) The petitioner requested for appointment of an Advocate as his defence representative. It was not accepted despite representation of the department by a Judicial Officer. (iii) Documents relied in the enquiry were not supplied to the petitioner. (iv) The allegation of demand of bribe was false. It is coming out from the evidence where, initially, demand of Rs. 300/- was shown for fixing a date in the case, which was subsequently made to Rs. 150/-. (v) The statements of witnesses produced by the Department failed to prove the charges. (vi) The Department failed to produce file in which the date was to be fixed by the petitioner. In fact, petitioner was not having the case file so as to fix the date thus, the allegation made against the petitioner becomes false. (vii) The discrimination was caused while imposing punishment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, elaborating the arguments, submitted that explanation to the charge sheet is not a mere formality. It is required to be taken into consideration before nomination of Enquiry Officer, but the aforesaid procedure was not applied in this case. 6. (vii) The discrimination was caused while imposing punishment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, elaborating the arguments, submitted that explanation to the charge sheet is not a mere formality. It is required to be taken into consideration before nomination of Enquiry Officer, but the aforesaid procedure was not applied in this case. 6. The representation of the Department was made by the Judicial Officer, whereas, representation through an Advocate was denied to the petitioner. When the petitioner nominated a retired Judicial Officer, it was also not accepted on the ground that the said retired Judicial Officer got enrolled with the Bar Council without verifying as to whether he is practicing as an Advocate or not. The petitioner was left with no option but to take assistance of other person not much acquainted with the procedure. Hence, Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short the "Rules of 1958") was violated. 7. The petitioner was not supplied copies of the documents relied by the Department. He demanded copies of documents immediately on service of charge sheet but those documents were not supplied though inspection was permitted. When those documents were relied by the Department in the enquiry, copies thereof were required to be given so as to put a proper defence in the enquiry. Rule 16 (6) of the Rules of 1958 has been violated for the aforesaid. 8. It is further submitted that no written complaint was made for demand of bribe. The initiation was made on the oral complaint but there exist contradictions in the statements regarding amount so demanded i.e. Rs. 300/- or Rs. 150/- and further, who had given note of Rs. 100/- and note of Rs. 50/-. Whether it was by the Advocate or the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) Shri Dinesh Gupta. 9. No "Fard" for recovery of Rs. 150/- from the pocket of petitioner was made thus, the drive to book the petitioner was without applying procedure for it. 10. In view of the above, the petitioner could not have been subjected to disciplinary enquiry. The complaint was for demand of money to fix an early date in a case. The file of the case was not lying with the petitioner thus there was no occasion to fix a date. 10. In view of the above, the petitioner could not have been subjected to disciplinary enquiry. The complaint was for demand of money to fix an early date in a case. The file of the case was not lying with the petitioner thus there was no occasion to fix a date. An application for early date was submitted before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) yet the matter was not listed before the Court. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the genuineness of the complaint for demand of bribe or any illegal gratification was to be considered by the Enquiry Officer. The prayer is to interfere in the order of punishment, as otherwise it is shockingly disproportionate. The case of discrimination in passing the order has also been urged. 11. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners has contested the writ petition and submits that the appointment of Enquiry Officer was after consideration of explanation and, therefore only, the petitioner has not placed on record copy of the order of appointment of the Enquiry Officer. It is further submitted that appointment of an Advocate for defence in the Departmental Enquiry is not permissible thus it was denied and otherwise the petitioner could get representation through a person of his choice. The issue aforesaid cannot be raised now having accepted the assistance through the defence representative of his choice. The nomination of an Advocate as a defence representative is not permissible and otherwise Judicial Officer cannot be said to be trained and acquainted with the procedure of Disciplinary Enquiry. Thus, a case is not made out to cause interference in the disciplinary action. 12. It is further submitted that whatever documents had been relied by the Department were in the knowledge of the delinquent. He sought copies of those documents. The inspection was permitted in consonance to Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 with a permission to take abstract of the documents. The petitioner had inspected and taken abstract of the documents. He did not otherwise raise objection regarding non-supply of the documents before cross-examination of the departmental witnesses. It was due to availability of extract of the documents. The petitioner had effectively cross-examined the witnesses. The argument for non-supply of the documents is for the sake of it and has been taken when the report came adverse to the petitioner. 13. He did not otherwise raise objection regarding non-supply of the documents before cross-examination of the departmental witnesses. It was due to availability of extract of the documents. The petitioner had effectively cross-examined the witnesses. The argument for non-supply of the documents is for the sake of it and has been taken when the report came adverse to the petitioner. 13. The petitioner has raised factual controversy regarding demand of bribe, whether it was of Rs. 300/- or Rs. 150/-. He has further shown contradiction in the statements of witnesses and other aspects as if he was being tried in the criminal case instead of a departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has considered the evidence meticulously and finding statement to support allegations for demand of bribe, the conclusions have been drawn. The controversy as to whether currency note of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- were given by the Advocate or by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is again without proper reading of the evidence. It has come on record that one currency note of Rs. 100/- and other note of Rs. 50/- were given by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) after putting his signatures so as to prove demand as well as its satisfaction. Those notes were given to Shri Brijesh Mudgal, Advocate to give to the petitioner. Those notes were recovered from the pocket of delinquent/petitioner. The aforesaid was sufficient to prove the allegations. The challenge has been made on the ground that no memo of recovery was prepared as if petitioner was to be tried in a case of Prevention of Corruption Act so as to observe the aforesaid formality. 14. In the departmental enquiry, even the hearsay evidence is permissible. In the instant case, evidence was led to prove the charges. In view of the above also, a case is not made out for causing interference. 15. It is lastly submitted that no discrimination has been caused in inflicting punishment. The petitioner has named two other delinquents though were punished for different charges and, therefore, did not supply copy of their charge sheet to find out as to what was the charge against them. The case of discrimination is not made out and, at the same time, allegation against the petitioner are of serious nature thus the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate. The case of discrimination is not made out and, at the same time, allegation against the petitioner are of serious nature thus the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate. The Appellate Authority had considered all the issues raised in the appeal before its dismissal. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case, prayer is made not to cause interference in the order of punishment as well as in the appellate order. 16. We have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. The first ground to challenge the order of punishment is about non-consideration of explanation to the charge sheet before nomination of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has not placed on record copy of the order of nomination of the enquiry officer to show non-consideration of explanation submitted by him. The issue has been raised without supplying material to prove it. In view of the above and as the ground aforesaid was not raised either before the Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority though was available, we are unable to accept the first ground raised by the petitioner to challenge the orders impugned herein. 18. The other issue is of denial of representation through an Advocate. The facts of the case shows that petitioner requested for his representation through an Advocate and it was declined. On second occasion, name of retired Judicial Officer was given but it was also not accepted being enrolled as an Advocate. The petitioner then nominated an employee to represent his case and was permitted. The representation through an Advocate is not provided under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and, ordinarily, it is not so permissible unless it is shown that representation of the department is by an Advocate or by a person acquainted with the departmental enquiry. In the instant case, the Department was represented through a Judicial Officer. There is nothing on record to show that he was an expert for departmental enquiry. Learned counsel has given reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Others. , (1983) AIR SC 109 and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. , (1983) AIR SC 454. However, the facts of the case are distinguishable. Learned counsel has given reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Others. , (1983) AIR SC 109 and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. , (1983) AIR SC 454. However, the facts of the case are distinguishable. It is further to be seen that in absence of representation through an Advocate, a prejudice has been caused. It does not exist in the present case. In view of the above, we are unable to accept even the second ground raised by the petitioner. 19. The third ground is regarding non-supply of the documents relied by the Department during the course of enquiry. It is an admitted fact that the documents were same as were demanded by the petitioner before submission of explanation. He was allowed to inspect and to take abstract of those documents thus, was having knowledge of the documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 16 (6) of the Rules of 1958 has been violated as there is mandate to supply copy of the documents relied by the Department. For consideration of the issue, Rule 16 (6) is quoted hereunder : (6) (a) Where the Government Servant has pleaded not guilty to the charges, at the commencement of the enquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall ask the Presenting Officer appearing on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority to submit the list of witnesses and documents within 10 days, who shall also simultaneously send a copy to the Government Servant. Delinquent Officer, within ten days of the receipt of the list of prosecution witness and documents, shall submit the list of documents required by him for his defence. The Inquiring Authority shall then summon the documents of both sides and ask the parties to admit or deny them. It shall then summon such evidence as is necessary, giving opportunity to the presenting officer for examination-in-chief and also to the Government Servant or his assisting officer, whosever may be present, for cross-examination. The Inquiring Authority shall then summon the documents of both sides and ask the parties to admit or deny them. It shall then summon such evidence as is necessary, giving opportunity to the presenting officer for examination-in-chief and also to the Government Servant or his assisting officer, whosever may be present, for cross-examination. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witness on any point on which they have been cross-examined but not on any new matter, without the leave of the Inquiring Authority, after the close of the prosecution evidence the Government Servant shall be called upon to submit the list of the witnesses within 10 days which he would like to produce in his defence. The Inquiring Authority after considering the relevancy of the witnesses and the documents shall summon only the relevant witnesses and the documents and record the evidence thereof, while giving opportunity of Examination-in-Chief and cross-examination/re-examination to the parties and then close the evidence. The Inquiring Authority shall consider the relevancy of the witnesses and the documents called for by both the parties and in case of his refusal to summon any witnesses or documents, he shall record the reason in writing. The Inquiring Authority may also put such questions to the witnesses of the parties, as it thinks fit, in the interest of justice. An opportunity for hearing the arguments shall be given to the parties. Note:- If the Government Servant applied orally or in writing for the supply of copies of the statement of witnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (6) (a), the Inquiring Authority shall furnish him with such copies as early as possible and in any case not later than three days before the commencement of the examination of the witnesses on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. (6)(a)(1). The evidence of any person which is of a formal character may be given by affidavit and may, subject to all just exception, be accepted in evidence in departmental proceedings. Where the enquiry officer thinks fir that the person should be summoned and examined personally, or if either party, namely the presenting officer or the delinquent officer insists on the personal attendance of the witness, arrangements should be made for the personal attendance of such witness. Where the enquiry officer thinks fir that the person should be summoned and examined personally, or if either party, namely the presenting officer or the delinquent officer insists on the personal attendance of the witness, arrangements should be made for the personal attendance of such witness. (6) (b) The enquiring Authority may, for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, recall witnesses for examination in part-heard cases being conducted by him. (6) (c) The Inquiring Authority shall give a notice within 10 days of the order or within such further time not exceeding 10 days as the Enquiring Authority may allow, for the discovery or production of any documents which are in the possession of Government but not mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (6) (a). Note :- The Government Servant shall indicate the relevance of the documents required by him to be discovered or produced by the Government. The Inquiring Authority shall, on receipt of the notice for the discovery or production of documents, forward the same or copies thereof to the authority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept, with as requisition for the production of the document by such date as may be specified in such requisition: Provided that the Enquiring Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, refuse to requisite such of the documents as are in its opinion, not relevant to the case. On receipt of the requisition, every authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents shall produce the same before the Inquiry Authority: Provided that if the authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that the production of all or, any of such documents would be against the public interest or security of the State, it shall inform the Inquiring Authority accordingly and the Inquiring Authority shall, on being so informed, communicate the information to the Government Servant and withdraw the requisition made by it for the production or discovery of such documents. (6) (d) In case of joint departmental enquiry under Rule 18 or in the case of enquiry under Rule 16 of these rules, the Government Servant/s/fail/fails to appear without sufficient cause on the date fixed for the hearing of which he had the notice, the Inquiry Authority, may proceed with the enquiry in the absence of such Government Servant(s). (6) (A) If it shall appear necessary before the close of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, the Inquiring Authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not including in the list given to the Government Servant or may itself call for new evidence or re-call re-examine any witness and such case the Government Servant shall be entitled to have, if he demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the Inquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the days of adjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned. The Inquiring Authority shall give the Government Servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record. The Inquiring Authority may also allow the Government Servant to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that production of such evidence is necessary in the interest of justice. Note:- New evidence shall not be permitted or called for or, any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produces originally. (6) (B)(a) Where a Disciplinary Authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 14, but not competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of Rule 14, has itself inquired into or caused to be inquired into the articles of any charge and that authority, having regarding to its own findings or having regard to its decision on any of the findings of any Inquiring Authority appointed by it, is of the opinion that the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of Rule 14 should be imposed on the Government Servant, that authority shall forward the records of the inquiry to such disciplinary authority as is competent to impose the last mentioned penalties. (b) The Disciplinary Authority to which the records are so forwarded may act on the evidence on the record or may, if it is of the opinion that further examination of any witnesses is necessary in the interest of justice, recall the witnesses and examine, cross-examine and re-examine the witness and may impose on the Government Servant such penalty as it may deem fit in accordance with rules." 20. The rule does not provide for supply of copies of documents. It provides for a list of the documents and of witnesses. It is to be produced by each party. The Rule further provides for summoning of the documents and the parties would be asked to admit or deny the documents. The facts have not been narrated in reference to Rule 16 (6) of the Rules of 1958 as to whether the list of witnesses and documents were supplied by each party. In absence of it, we are unable to take a view regarding non-compliance of the provision aforesaid. Learned counsel for the High Court, at this stage, submits that even list and copy of the documents were supplied. The original record for it was shown to the Court to prove supply of copies of documents and we are satisfied by it thus a case is not made out to allege violation of Rule 16 (6) of the Rules of 1958. 21. Now comes the factual dispute as to whether the demand was of Rs. 300/- or Rs. 150/-. The aforesaid fact has been taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer minutely. The demand was of Rs. 300/- but petitioner was given Rs. 150/-. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) put his signatures on the currency notes to pass on to the petitioner. Those currency notes were supplied to the petitioner and were recovered by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). The petitioner has failed to explain as to how the currency notes containing signatures of Dy. Registrar (Judicial) came in his pocket, thus we are unable to accept factual controversy raised by the petitioner. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has even raised the issue regarding non-preparation of memo or "Fard" as if it was a case to book the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In fact, the recovery of the currency notes was to find out the truth of the allegation. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has even raised the issue regarding non-preparation of memo or "Fard" as if it was a case to book the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In fact, the recovery of the currency notes was to find out the truth of the allegation. The Department remained successful in recovery of the currency notes duly signed by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). The evidence to this effect exists. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner made reference of judgments in the case reported in Sher Bahadur v. Union of India and Others. , (2002) 7 SCC 142 : ( AIR 2002 SC 3030 ), Kr. Amarsingh of Sabalpore v. Madanmohan Lal , (1956) AIR Raj. 58; Pannalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra , (1979) AIR SC 1191. 24. We have gone through the judgments and perused the record of this case. 25. We find that evidence was produced to prove the charges against the petitioner. The recovery of currency notes has been proved. Thus, none of the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner would provide any assistance to him. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has even raised the issue of discrimination in action. While making comparison of the punishment against two other employees, petitioner could not narrate the charges against them. The petitioner has not submitted copy of the charge sheet to compare the allegations. In absence of it, a case of discrimination is not made out. 26-A. The punishment is said to be disproportionate. We are not impressed by last argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. An employee caught for demand and acceptance of bribe needs to be dealt with proper punishment and, in such circumstances, order of punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate. 27. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any merit in the arguments so as to cause interference in the order of punishment and order of the Appellate Authority. 28. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.