Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1313 (RAJ)

Brahma Prakash Badaya v. State of Rajasthan

2018-05-17

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was working as Lower Divisional Clerk in Lottery Department of State of Rajasthan, challenging the charge-sheet, dt. 22nd January, 1998 under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the CCA Rules, 1958') the penalty order dt. 23rd December, 1998, removing the petitioner from service and order dt. 14th October, 1999, passed by the Appellate Authority, rejecting the Departmental Appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case, in the nutshell, are that the petitioner was working in the Lottery Department on the post of LDC initially on temporary basis since 5th December, 1983, and finally he came to be regularized in the year 1993. 3. The petitioner is said to have been posted as Camp Incharge of the State Lotteries at different places like Jodhpur, Lucknow, Agra, Gurgaon, Gaziabad, Faridabad, Kosi, Parwano etc. The petitioner has pleaded in; his writ petition that he was posted as Camp Incharge at different places during his posting for about 28 months and the daily sales of lotteries were effected from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 2.5 crore. The petitioner has pleaded that he was individually responsible for collecting, handling and depositing Rs. 50 crores in cash. 4. The petitioner has also pleaded in his writ petition that on 17th July, 1997, he came to be posted as Camp Incharge, Lotteries Department, Faridabad (I). It has been pleaded that one M/s. Suresh Kumar Raj Kumar & Company was appointed as Departmental Agent for some period in the year 1997 and since the Department of Lotteries was not finding the services of such stockist satisfactory, therefore, appointed another agent in the name of M/s. Sapna Lottery Agency with effect from 31st July, 1997. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that the Department of Lotteries had put a condition while appointing the agent that he was to give a minimum guarantee of daily sale of Rs. 3.75 crores from 1st August, 1997 and of Rs. 4.25 crores from 16th August, 1997. 6. The petitioner has pleaded that the said agent could not establish his business, as the Department itself had issued an advertisement seeking offers for appointment of main stockist on a regular basis. 7. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dt. 3.75 crores from 1st August, 1997 and of Rs. 4.25 crores from 16th August, 1997. 6. The petitioner has pleaded that the said agent could not establish his business, as the Department itself had issued an advertisement seeking offers for appointment of main stockist on a regular basis. 7. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dt. 22nd January, 1998 under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 and therein it was alleged that while working at Faridabad, there was a deficiency of Rs. 16,56,656/- & the said amount was not deposited with the Government. It was alleged that petitioner misused the amount causing loss to the Govt. 8. The second charge was in relation to the shortage of Rs. 43,40,000/-and the said amount was not deposited, which resulted into loss to the 1 Government. The charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet are reproduced as here under - 9. The petitioner after receipt of charge-sheet submitted his reply (Annex.5). The petitioner has pleaded in his reply that M/s. Sapna Lottery Agency had made sale of Rs. 14,77,88,160/- during the period from 1st August, 1997 to 13th August, 1997 and 90% of the said amount of tickets was paid back. The petitioner pleaded that the difference of amount of Rs. 25 14,75,550/- could not be recovered from the firm, as it was not possible to check the huge amount of Rs. 1.25 crore every day & then to issue the tickets. The issue of shortfall in revenue due to short lottery ticket/tempered ticket or no price ticket could be only verified after regular audit. Petitioner further pleaded that the Department had a right to recover the same amount 30 from the firm, but petitioner was not responsible for payment of difference of amount, as alleged in the charge-sheet dt. 22nd January, 1998. 10. The petitioner in respect of Charge No. 2 pleaded that he was not reponsible for any loss caused to the Government and the short-fall amount was to be adjusted by the State Government from the royalty amount. 11. The petitioner has pleaded in his writ petition that after submitting his reply, an order was issued on 5th August, 1998, whereby Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold enquiry against him. 12. 11. The petitioner has pleaded in his writ petition that after submitting his reply, an order was issued on 5th August, 1998, whereby Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold enquiry against him. 12. The petitioner has further pleaded in his petition that the Disciplinary Authority without giving due consideration to the submissions raised by the petitioner in his reply to the charge-sheet appointed Enquiry Officer in a mechanical manner. 13. The petitioner has pleaded in his writ petition that after submitting his reply to the charge-sheet, he did not receive any communication and all of a sudden, an order dt. 17th December, 1998 was sent to the petitioner 45 along with copy of the Enquiry Report. 14. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that Enquiry Report, which was annexed with the letter dt. 17th December, 1998, also did not consider any evidence except repetition of the charges, which were levelled in the charge-sheet and enquiry report was prepared like an administrative order without there being any evidence being recorded either from the Department or from the petitioner's side. 15. The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that after receipt of letter dt. 17th December, 1998, sent along with the enquiry report, he submitted his representation on 21st December, 1998. The petitioner pleaded in his representation that he was not responsible for any loss caused to the Government and further pleaded that he had discharged his duties in most efficient manner at different places and due to efforts made by the petitioner, the Department was able to generate lot of revenue and considering the performance of the petitioner, he was posted at different places as Incharge in the Lottery Department of Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner further pleaded that due to his efforts, the Department was able to recover Rs. 59.96,656/-. 16. The petitioner further highlighted the fact that it was the arrangement with the agent by the State Government on such terms and conditions, where the alleged loss had taken place and the petitioner had no role in the entire episode of money not being paid by the agent. 17. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that after submitting his representation, the Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order dt. 23rd December, 1998, and imposed penalty of 'removal from service'. The Disciplinary Authority further recorded a finding that petitioner caused loss of Rs. 17. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that after submitting his representation, the Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order dt. 23rd December, 1998, and imposed penalty of 'removal from service'. The Disciplinary Authority further recorded a finding that petitioner caused loss of Rs. 58,15,550/- and this amount was required to be recovered from the petitioner and M/s. Sapna Company Lottery Ltd., Faridabad. 18. The Disciplinary Authority further found that the petitioner was guilty of violating the instructions issued by the Department from time to time and he committed gross negligence and further in-connivance with the M/s. Sapna Company Lottery Ltd., Faridabad, he misappropriated the total amount of Rs. 58,15,550/. The Disciplinary Authority recorded a finding that acts of the petitioner were committed with malafide intentions and as such, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of 'removal from service'. 19. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the penalty order dt. 23rd December, 1998, preferred the Departmental Appeal before the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner in his memo of appeal specifically took a plea that there was travesty of justice, as the order of removal was passed without holding any enquiry or without recording any departmental evidence. 20. The petitioner also highlighted that there was a wholesome breach of Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958, by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Enquiry Officer while conducting the enquiry. 21. The petitioner also pleaded in his appeal that terms and conditions which were imposed by the State Government, while dealing with the Lottery Ticket selling agency, resulted into loss to the Government and petitioner had no role whatsoever in the alleged loss, said to be caused to the Government. 22. The Appellate Authority vide order dt. 14th October, 1999 (Annex. 14) has rejected the appeal of the petitioner and found that penalty order was rightly passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 23. The petitioner has assailed the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority raising various grounds as mentioned in the memo of the writ petition. 24. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition. 23. The petitioner has assailed the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority raising various grounds as mentioned in the memo of the writ petition. 24. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition. The respondents have come out with a plea that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to take care of the revenue of the State Government and they have further disputed the discharging of duties by the petitioner in bona-fide manner. 25. The respondents have pleaded that allegation of the petitioner that there was no sufficient arrangement by the Department to deposit the amount of Lottery sale, is incorrect. The respondents have specifically averred that it 15 was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to have the desired demand draft of the amount received by him, in respect of sale of Lottery Tickets, the royalty amount and the lump-sump amount, received by the petitioner from the stockist/agent. 26. The respondents have disputed that there was decision of the 20 department to adjust any security amount from the Lottery agent and considering the serious lapses committed by the petitioner, the Department has tried to justify the action taken against him. The respondents have further justified the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. 27. This Court in order to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner, about violation of principles of natural justice and other provisions contained in Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958, requested Id. Additional Advocate General, Mr. J.M. Saxena, to produce record of the Departmental Enquiry for perusal of the Court vide order dt. 9th January, 2018. 28. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. J.M. Saxena, AAG, had written letters dt. 11th January, 2018, to the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan and to the Director, Small Savings Directorate, Government of Rajasthan and informed the authorities that this Court had desired to see the record along with the enquiry proceedings and 35 as such, Officer Incharge of the case, was asked to be present in the Court on the next date of hearing. It was further informed to the authorities that adverse inference may be drawn against the person by this Court, if the record is not produced. 29. It was further informed to the authorities that adverse inference may be drawn against the person by this Court, if the record is not produced. 29. This Court on 30th January, 2018, granted further time to the 40 counsel for the respondents to produce the record and fixed the matter on 15th February, 2018. 30. On 15th February, 2018 this Court had granted last opportunity to the learned counsel for the respondents to seek necessary instructions from the O.I.C., with regard to availability of the record of the enquiry and fixed the 45 matter on 8th March, 2018. Learned counsel for the respondents is said to have further reiterated request of making the record available vide order dt. . 15th February, 2018. 31. On 8th March, 2018, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. J.M. I Saxena, AAG, informed this Court that best efforts are made to get the record I and even Finance Secretary has been informed and as such in the interest of justice, this Court had passed an order granting the last opportunity to the respondents by further observing that in case no intimation was given to this Court about availability of enquiry record, the Court would proceed in the matter, in absence of the record. 32. Mr. J.M. Saxena, AAG, has submitted that in spite of repeated requests made to the authorities concerned, no efforts were made by such authorities to produce the record of the enquiry. (This Court will take up this issue in subsequent paras of this order). 33. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following submissions : 1. After receipt of charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply and denied the allegation of causing any loss to the Government. The Disciplinary Authority without application of mind appointed the Enquiry Officer in a mechanical manner. 2. Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. The petitioner was not informed about the date of enquiry, the defence witnesses which were sought to be examined on behalf of the Department, and documents which were sought to be relied by the Enquiry Officer. 3. The petitioner was never asked to produce his list of witnesses or to produce any documents in support of his case and enquiry was conducted in ex-parte manner without following any procedure. 4. 3. The petitioner was never asked to produce his list of witnesses or to produce any documents in support of his case and enquiry was conducted in ex-parte manner without following any procedure. 4. The Enquiry report shows total non-application of mind and except reproduction of memo of allegation levelled in the charge-sheet, no independent finding has been recorded. 5. The Disciplinary Authority has issued the impugned order in mechanical manner without giving his finding on each change and did not consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, in response to the show cause notice given to him. 6. The Disciplinary Authority has drawn conclusions only on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and petitioner is found to be guilty of causing loss to the Government without any justification. 34. The Appellate Authority has also not considered the appeal of the petitioner properly, which raised several important issues like violation of principles of natural justice and other serious lapses committed in conducting the enquiry. 35. The Appellate Authority was required to consider two important aspects of the matter under Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958, as follows 1. Whether principles of natural justice have been followed during the enquiry proceedings. 2. Whether the facts were established to sustain the impugned penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 36. Counsel submits that the Appellate Authority did not consider all these aspects. 37. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court as well as of this Court, which are quoted here under :- 1. Delhi Administration v. Chanan Shah reported in 1969(1) SCC 737 . 2. Randhir Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1992(2) RLR 519 . 3. Dr. B.K. Choudhary v. State of Raj. & Ors. reported in 1992(1) RLR 210 . 4. Bagda Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1992(2) RLR 579. 5. S.C. Girotra v. United Commercial Bank (UCO) & Ors. reported in 1995(7) S.L.R. 152 . 6. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623 . 7. Prabhu Lal Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1991(2) RLR 630 . 8. Ram Chander v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1986(3) SCC 103 . 9. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel reported in 1985(3) SCC 398 . 10. Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. 7. Prabhu Lal Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1991(2) RLR 630 . 8. Ram Chander v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1986(3) SCC 103 . 9. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel reported in 1985(3) SCC 398 . 10. Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2006(4) SCC 713 . 11. Nathi Lal Sawraswat v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 1993(1) WLC (Raj.) 64. 12. Bhagwati Prasad Dubey v. Food Corporation of India reported in AIR 1988 SC 434 . 13. Govt, of T.N. v. K.N. Ramamurthy reported in 1997(7) SCC 101 . 14. Hukum Chand v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1990(1) RLR 647 . 15. Shyam Naryan Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1965 Raj. 87 . 38. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. J.M. Saxena, AAG, has submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner, is of very serious nature, as petitioner has indulged in causing huge financial loss to the employer. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. J.M. Saxena, AAG has submitted that petitioner was In-charge at Faridabad for lottery job on behalf of Rajasthan Govt and he with the connivance of the agent, misused, misappropriated the huge amount, which runs into crores of rupees. 39. Mr. J.M. Saxena, AAG, submitted that due to conspiracy hatched by the petitioner, Government had to suffer loss in crores of rupees. The submission of learned ocunsel for the respondents is that petitioner has not only indulged in indiscipline, negligence but also had mala-fide intention to misappropriate the Government funds. 40. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. J.M. Saxena, AAG, submitted that the Disciplinary Authority considering the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner, had rightly appointed the Enquiry Officer and discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to appoint Enquiry Officer cannot, be questioned by the petitioner. 41. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that after receipt of reply to the charge-sheet & considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Enquiry Officer and Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry by considering all the relevant facts and materials available on record. 42. 41. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that after receipt of reply to the charge-sheet & considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Enquiry Officer and Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry by considering all the relevant facts and materials available on record. 42. Counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Authority had considered the gravity of the charges, as it not only resulted into serious misconduct/offence being committed by the petitioner but there was misappropriation also of the Government funds and as such removal from service was the right punishment, which was imposed upon the petitioner. 43. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Appellate Authority has gone into all the aspects and viewed that the penalty order has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority in a rightful manner. Counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority has looked into each and every aspect and after coming to the conclusion, there has been no reach of principles of natural justice, the appeal has been rejected. 44. Mr. J.M. Saxena AAG, has submitted that even if the enquiry record is not before this Court, the documents which are on record make out a clear case that petitioner was guilty of causing huge loss to the Government by misappropriating the funds. Counsel submitted that if a Government servant indulges in such kind of misconduct, no latitude is required to be shown to such a Government Servant and the authorities are bound to protect and preserve the Government Revenue. Counsel submitted that admittedly loss has been caused to the Government in the instant case and petitioner who was working independently at Faridabad, as a sole representative of the State Government was under legal obligation to protect rights of the State Government, which petitioner failed to maintain with mala-fide intentions. 45. Counsel for the petitioner, during pendency of the writ petition, has placed on record an additional affidavit, wherein he has placed a document/letter dt. 4th May, 2002, on record. The letter dt. 4th May, 2002, has been written to issue afresh order, which was issued by Director, Small Savings Directorate, Government of Rajasthan, whereby M/s. Sapna Lottery Agency Ltd., Faridabad has been refunded Rs. 1 crore, which was deposited as security amount by the said agency. 46. 4th May, 2002, on record. The letter dt. 4th May, 2002, has been written to issue afresh order, which was issued by Director, Small Savings Directorate, Government of Rajasthan, whereby M/s. Sapna Lottery Agency Ltd., Faridabad has been refunded Rs. 1 crore, which was deposited as security amount by the said agency. 46. Counsel has pleaded that on the one hand, the petitioner is alleged to have caused loss to the Government in connivance with the agency and on the other hand, the Government itself had refunded the amount of Rs. 1 crore taken as Security amount from M/s. Sapna Lottery Agency Ltd. 47. Counsel has tried to submit that it was not because loss was caused to the Government, on the contrary the Government, itself has refunded the amount to the agent. 48. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 49. The petitioner in the present case has been issued a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958. Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958, provides the procedure for major imposition of penalties. The major penalty under Clause (iv) to (vii) of Rule 14 can be passed only after an enquiry is held, as per the procedure laid down under Rule 16(2) onwards. The Disciplinary Authority after framing definite charges on the basis of allegations, informs the delinquent about such charge with a statement of allegations, on which they are based. The delinquent is asked to submit reply/written statement as to whether he admits or denies charges levelled against him and what explanation or defence he has to offer. 50. The Government Servant is further directed to inspect and take extracts from official record for the purpose of preparing his defence as per Rule 16(3). The Disciplinary Authority after receipt of written statement/reply or where no such defence is put up within a specific time, may itself enquire into such of the charge or can appoint an Enquiry Officer. 51. Rule (4A) of Rules 16 provides that if Government Servant who has not admitted any of the article/charge in the written statement of defence before the Inquiring Authority such Authority shall ask him whether he is guilty to any of the article of charge, the Inquiring Authority shall accordingly make a record, if the charges are admitted relating to a fine of guilty. 52. 52. Sub Rule (5) of Rule 16 cause a duty on the Disciplinary Authority to nominate any person to present the case before the Inquiring Authority and further Government Servant is also permitted to have assistance of any other Government Servant to defend him in the enquiry proceedings. 53. Sub Rule (6) of Rule 16 provides a procedure where the Inquiring Officer has to ask Presenting Officer appearing on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority to submit list of witnesses and documents and simultaneously a copy will be sent to the delinquent Government Servant. The delinquent Government Servant is also required to give the list of witnesses and documents, which he wants to rely The right of cross-examination is given to the Government Servant and after receipt of list of the prosecution witnesses and documents, he is called upon to submit list of witnesses and documents, which he intends to produce in his defence. The Inquiring Authority after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, is required to supply copies of statement of witnesses as required by the Delinquent Officer. 54. Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 16 provides that conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority has to prepare a report of the Inquiry, record its findings on each of the charges together with reasons thereof and the said report, is to be submitted to the Disciplinary Authority by him. 55. In the present case, the respondents after serving charge-sheet to the petitioner, received reply filed by the petitioner in response to the charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and he did not follow any procedure as envisaged in Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958. 56. The respondents have not controverted the facts which has been narrated by the petitioner in his petition. The petitioner has not been provided any opportunity to appear before the Enquiry Officer and thus he suffered to defend himself and all the proceedings undertaken by the Inquiring Officer in absence of the petitioner. The procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer in wholesome breach of the requirement of CCA Rules. 57. This Court further finds that the enquiry report which has been[ prepared is also not according to sub Rule (7) of Rule 16 as the Enquiry! The procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer in wholesome breach of the requirement of CCA Rules. 57. This Court further finds that the enquiry report which has been[ prepared is also not according to sub Rule (7) of Rule 16 as the Enquiry! Officer has not given his own findings on the two charges levelled against the petitioner and further there are no reasons in support of their so called findings, which have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The finding of Enquiry report is reproduced as hereunder :- 58. The perusal of the Enquiry report shows reproduction of the charge, memo of allegations. The petitioner is alleged to have committed gross negligence in-connivance with the agent, as found by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has abruptly reached to such conclusion without even discussing in detail the allegation which was levelled against the petitioner. The perusal of the enquiry report further shows that neither any witness was examined on behalf of the Department nor any document was produced and still he found the charges proved against the petitioner. 59. This Court cannot approve such procedure which has been adopted by the Enquiry Officer. The charges levelled against the petitioner were of serious nature as huge financial loss was caused to the Government due to alleged conspiracy hatched between the petitioner and the agent. However, the authorities, who conducted the enquiry have performed their duty in most unusual manner. The alleged loss of crores of rupees as alleged to be committed by the petitioner and the agent has been dealt with in a most casual manner by the authorities, who have conducted the enquiry. The gravity of charges required the Disciplinary authority as well as Inquiring Authority to be very meticulous and prudent in proving the charge against the petitioner. The manner of conducting against such serious lapses against the Government servant, speaks volumes about conduct of the Enquiry Officer. 60. This Court finds that the report which is prepared by the Enquiry Officer is bereft of any reason and in most casual manner, the charges have been reproduced and conclusion has been drawn. 61. This Court finds that the CCA Rules, 1958 have been enacted with the sole purpose of dealing with the delinquent Government servants who commit misconduct of major and minor nature and accordingly proceedings are required to be undertaken, as per the Statutory Rules. 62. 61. This Court finds that the CCA Rules, 1958 have been enacted with the sole purpose of dealing with the delinquent Government servants who commit misconduct of major and minor nature and accordingly proceedings are required to be undertaken, as per the Statutory Rules. 62. The purpose of CCA Rules, 1958 is to bring the culprits to the book for punishing them suitably, in case they commit misconduct. The loss to the Government of crores of rupees was required to be taken seriously by the Authorities and they have utterly failed to do so. 63. This Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority has relied upon the enquiry report which was prepared in a slip shod manner and Disciplinary Authority has rather expanded the scope by inserting several facts, which were also not adequately dealt with by the Enquiry Officer. 64. The Disciplinary Authority might have got input or record with him to come to the conclusion that petitioner with connivance of the agent misappropriated the huge amount of Rs. 58,15,550/-, however, this Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority is also bound to consider record of the enquiry and then the findings are required to be given. The Disciplinary Authority in the instant case also recorded that there has been mala-fide intentions of petitioner in misappropriating the Government amount by not depositing the same in the Department and as such the Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty of removal from service. 65. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority has also not acted as per requirement of CCA Rules, 1958, has substance as the Disciplinary Authority only on the basis of enquiry report could not have passed the penalty order & he should have given his own findings on the charges levelled against the petitioner. 66. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed by the petitioner raised very important issue with regard to violation of principle of natural justice, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority while considering the Departmental Appeal has to keep in mind the parameters, which have been laid down in Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958. 67. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed by the petitioner raised very important issue with regard to violation of principle of natural justice, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority while considering the Departmental Appeal has to keep in mind the parameters, which have been laid down in Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958. 67. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958, requires that the Appellate Authority has to consider as to whether the procedure prescribed in the CCA Rules, 1958, has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice. 68. The Appellate Authority further as per requirement of Rule 2(b) of Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958, is required to consider as to whether the facts on which the order was passed, has been established and whether the penalty, which is imposed, is adequate or inadequate. 69. This Court finds that once the petitioner had taken a specific plea in the memo of appeal that the procedure prescribed in the enquiry was not followed the Appellate Authority should have given findings on this issue. The Appellate Authority in a most casual manner, passed the order of rejecting the appeal after affirming the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has not gone into the various issues which were raised by the petitioner to defend himself. The very purpose of filing of Departmental!. Appeal is to judge the validity of order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty under the CCA Rules, 1958. 70. The Appellate Authority is enjoined upon to act as per Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958. The Departmental Appeal cannot be decided as an administrative order by the authorities. The consideration of appeal has to be as per Rule (2) of Rule 30. 71. The delinquent when files the appeal before the Appellate Authority, he has to consider the illegality or irregularity committed by the Disciplinary Authority & it requires the closer examination by the Appellate Authority. The reproduction of charges and findings of Disciplinary Authority by the Appellate Authority, do not deal the appeal of a delinquent in a fair and proper manner. 72. The reproduction of charges and findings of Disciplinary Authority by the Appellate Authority, do not deal the appeal of a delinquent in a fair and proper manner. 72. The perusal of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority shows that it has been passed in a gross violation of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958. 73. This Court finds that Officers of the Finance Department under whose control was the Lottery Department, have not taken due care at any point of time, after issuing the charge-sheet. The orders passed at various stages, have led to think in such terms by this Court in this case. This Court finds such state of affairs to be very disturbing as alleged loss caused to the Government, has been dealt with in a most casual manner 74. The petitioner though was issued the charge-sheet and later on punished also, however, the series of events which had taken place, speak volumes about the things, which had been done at the Department level. However, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and by the Appellate Authority are not in accordance with the requirement of law and they are required to be set aside by this Court. Before parting with this judgment, this Court deems it proper to discuss and take note of the various acts, which have been done by the respondents in their official capacity. This Court had specifically asked learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. J.M. Saxena, AAG, to produce the record of the enquiry before this Court, to verify the correctness of submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and to consider the allegations levelled in the writ petition, of not conducting the enquiry in proper & fair manner. 75. Learned counsel for the respondents had officially communicated to the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, and to the Director, Small Savings Directorate, Government of Rajasthan, to produce the record before this Court. Both the Officers have shown their inability to produce the record before the Court and it was given to counsel for the State that record is not available with the Department. 76. The matter requires serious consideration by this Court and the issue is of not-producing the record before this Court. The Department at one point of time, thought that the loss to the Government was of a serious matter and it initiated the Departmental Enquiry. 76. The matter requires serious consideration by this Court and the issue is of not-producing the record before this Court. The Department at one point of time, thought that the loss to the Government was of a serious matter and it initiated the Departmental Enquiry. It is not understandable as how the enquiry record is not available when the matter v/as sub-judice before this Court, as the writ was filed in the year 1999. The non-production of record and non-assistance to the learned counsel for the respondent as required, is a serious matter, which requires proper enquiry. 77. This Court deems it proper to direct the Chief Secretary of the Govt, to conduct an Enquiry into this aspect as to why record of Departmental Enquiry in the present case, was not produced before the Court or it was lost. The Chief Secretary would nominate a Senior Officer to look into this matter and after conducting the enquiry in respect of omission/lapses committed by the Officers, the report would be submitted before this Court within a period of two months. 78. A copy of this order be sent to The Chief Secretary of Govt, of Rajasthan, Finance Secretary, Govt, of Rajasthan & to the Director, Small Savings Directorate, Government of Rajasthan. Jaipur. 79. This Court does not have any option except to set aside the impugned penalty order dt. 23rd December, 1998, and order passed by the Appellate Authority dt. 14th October, 1999. The petitioner would not be entitled for any consequential benefits during the intervening period, however, service of the petitioner may be counted for other benefit like pension and other post retiral benefits. 80. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. The compliance of this order may be made within a period of two months and the report may be placed before this Court after two months. The Chief Secretary, Govt, of Rajasthan, is required to submit the report before the Court on or before 30th July, 2018.