JUDGMENT : ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner by making the following prayers in the writ petition:— Prayer “It is, there fore, most respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to call for the entire record relating to the petitioner and by an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof:— (i) to quash and set aside the impugned orders dt. 18.05.2000 (Annex. 24) and 8.10.1997 (Annex. 20) respondents may be further directed that expugned the adverse entries in the APAR of the petitioner for the year 1995-96 and 1996-97 which was communicated to the petitioner by order dt. 24.9.1996 (Annex. 26) and 25.10.1997 (Annex. 27); (ii) any other appropriate order which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner; (iii) the cost of the writ petition may also be given to the petitioner.” 2. The perusal of the prayer shows that petitioner has challenged the order dt. 8th October, 1997 (Annex. 20), whereby the Disciplinary Authority had imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increment with cumulative effect upon the petitioner. The order dt. 18th May, 2000 (Annex. 24) is under challenge as the Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions in respect of penalty order and the order passed by the Appellate Authority and further made submissions that the memo dt. 24th September, 1996 (Annex. 26), communicating adverse remarks of APR 1995-96 is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition and counsel further submitted that order dt. 25th October, 1997 (Annex. 27) has been further assailed communicating the adverse remarks in APR for the year 1996-97 i.e. 1st April, 1996 to 26th August, 1996. 4. Counsel for the petitioner was asked by this Court as how the present writ petition is maintainable against the penalty order and the adverse remarks communicated to the petitioner in the year 1995-96 and 1996-97. The Court further asked as whether the adverse remarks communicated to the petitioner have any concern with the alleged charge-sheet issued to the petitioner. 5. Counsel submitted that the petitioner has rightly approached this Court by challenging not only the penalty order but the communication of adverse remarks as well. 6. The Court further asked as whether the adverse remarks communicated to the petitioner have any concern with the alleged charge-sheet issued to the petitioner. 5. Counsel submitted that the petitioner has rightly approached this Court by challenging not only the penalty order but the communication of adverse remarks as well. 6. This Court had asked the learned counsel, as he wants to press both the prayers, as prima-facie the Court found that there is misjoinder of cause of action, by filing this writ petition challenging the penalty order and communication of adverse remarks. Counsel insisted that petitioner does not want to challenge separately the communication of adverse remarks and this Court is required to adjudicate on the basis of impugned penalty orders the issue of communicating adverse remarks. 7. This Court before dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of the firm opinion that in the present petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the penalty order as well as the orders communicating adverse remarks. The petitioner has raised all his grievances in his entire petition with respect to the penalty order being passed by the Disciplinary Authority and only in ground (j) the petitioner has made a submission that the adverse remarks were not based on reasons, in respect of APAR's of the petitioner and such findings are going to affect the promotion of the petitioner. 8. This Court finds that the petitioner's prayer against the adverse remarks communicated cannot be entertained and as such prayer of the petitioner in respect of challenge to the order dt. 24th September, 1996 (Annex.26) & 25th October, 1997 (Annex.27) is rejected. 9. The petitioner, if so advised, can take appropriate legal remedy but this Court cannot resolve the dispute which is raised by the petitioner in the instant petition challenging the APAR. The challenge to APAR is not maintainable in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has to take an alternative remedy to challenge the adverse remarks in appropriate forum and if the petitioner has not availed the same, the petitioner himself has to be blamed for the same. This Court is considering the issue of penalty only. 10. The petitioner has to take an alternative remedy to challenge the adverse remarks in appropriate forum and if the petitioner has not availed the same, the petitioner himself has to be blamed for the same. This Court is considering the issue of penalty only. 10. The facts, in the nutshell, are that while petitioner was working as UDC in the Department of Local Fund Audit, Rajasthan, Jaipur, he was served with a charge-sheet dt. 16th December, 1996, wherein following three charges were leveled against the petitioner, which is reproduced hereunder:— ^^vkjksi la0 1 ;g gS fd Jh gfjukjk;.k jSxj] ofj"B fyfid ^^fuyfEcr** LFkkuh; fuf/k vads{k.k foHkkx] t;iqj tc 1-6-95 ls 4-6-96 rd tkap ny la- 5 esa dk;Zjr Fks rc uxjikfydk] jkex<+ 'ks[kkokVh ds o"kZ 94&95 ds vdsa{k.k gsrq fnukad 9-4-96 ,oa 10-4-96 dks t;iqj ls uxjikfydk] jkex<+ 'ks[kkokVh ,oa jkex<+ 'ks[kkokVh ,oa jkex<+ 'ks[kkokVh ls t;iqj okilh dh ;k=k] fcuk ;k=k fd;s gh mDr nksuksa fnolksa dks ;k=k djuk n'kkZdj QthZ ;k=k HkRrk] nSfud HkRrk dh jkf'k #- 203@& dk xyr Hkqxrku izkIr djus ds nks"kh gS] tSlk fd vkjksi fooj.k i= la 1 esa of.kZr gSA vkjksi la0 2 ;g gS fd Jh gfjukjk;.k jSxj] ofj"B fyfid ^^fuyfEcr** LFkkuh; fuf/k vads{k.k foHkkx] {ks=h; dk;kZy;] t;iqj tc fnukad 1-6-95 ls 4-6-96 rd tkap ny la- 5 esa dk;Zjr Fks rc fnukad 9-4-96 ,oa 10-4-96 dks uxjikfydk jkex<+ ds o"kZ 94&95 ds vads{k.k gsrq vads{k.k LFky ij ^^u-ik-jkex<+ 'ks[kkokVh** ugha igqaps ,oa uk gh fnukad & 9-4-96 ,oa 10-4-96 ds vodk'k izkFkZuk&i= gh dk;kZy; dks izLrqr fd;sA bl izdkj Jh gfjukjk;.k jSxj] ofj"B fyfid ^^fuyfEcr** fnukad 9-4-96 ls 10-4-96 rd fcuk vodk'k izLrqr fd;s ,oa M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jgrs gq;s mDr 2 fnol dks osru ,oa HkRrksa dh jkf'k xyr #i ls izkIr djus ds nks"kh gS] tSlk fd vkjksi fooj.k la- 2 esa of.kZr gSaA vkjksi la0 3 ;g gS fd gfjukjk;.k jSxj] ofj"B fyfid feF;k lwpuk,a nsdj vius vf/kdkfj;ksa dks xqejkg dj vuqfpr ykHk izkIr djus ds nks"kh gS] tSlk fd vkjksi fooj.k la- 3 esa mYysf[kr gSA** 11. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that he was one of the members of Audit Party No. 5 who had gone to Municipal Board, Ramgarh Shekhawati for audit of accounts for the year 1994-95 and the audit party reached Ramgarh Shekhawati on 9th April, 1996 but the staff of Municipal Board did not allow the team to commence the audit job due to absence of the Executive Officer and as such the audit party had to contact later on and had to procure an attendance certificate from the Chairman of the Board dt. 9th June, 1997 placed on record as Annex. 1. Petitioner has further pleaded in his petition that the Audit party waited for the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Ramgarh Shekhawati (Sikar), and they could meet on him on 10th April, 1996 and it was informed to them by the Executive Officer that Audit work was not possible as his staff was busy in Lok Sabha elections. 12. The petitioner has pleaded that the entire Audit Party had to return headquarters after obtaining a letter dt. 10th April, 1996 of Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Ramgarh Shekhawati, which has been placed on record as Annex. 2. Petitioner has submitted in his writ petition that crux of the charge-sheet is leveling an allegation of showing presence of the petitioner on 9th April, 1996 and 10th April, 1996 in Ramgarh Shekhawati and he drew false Traveling Allowance and Daily Allowance, misguided his officers and as such got wrongful payment of Rs. 203/-. The Charge Nos. 2 & 3 were also related to the same incident of petitioner's alleged presence on 9th April, 1996 & 10th April, 1996 at Ramgarh Shekhawati without undertaking the journey. 13. The petitioner has pleaded that after service of charge-sheet, he submitted his reply and petitioner in his reply had specifically denied the charges levelled against him. Petitioner had pleaded in his reply that, as per instructions issued to him, he along with other members had gone to Ramgarh Shekhawati on 9th April, 1996 and the Audit party being not allowed to undertake its job on 10th April, 1996, the petitioner along with Audit Team returned back and the relevant record was also available as per letter dt. 10th April, 1996 written by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Ramgarh Shekhawati to Joint Director Audit Department of Government of Rajasthan. 14. 10th April, 1996 written by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Ramgarh Shekhawati to Joint Director Audit Department of Government of Rajasthan. 14. Petitioner has pleaded that he had been placed under suspension vide order dt. 7th December, 1996 and further he was issued a letter dt. 19th May, 1997, by the Enquiry Officer asking the evidence/record of the petitioner in respect of 8 points formulated by the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner has pleaded that he filed reply to the said questionnaire being sent by the Enquiry Officer vide his reply (Annex. 8) and petitioner further pleaded in his reply to the questionnaire that petitioner had himself undertaken the traveling on 9th April, 1996 and as far as availability of tickets and details about class of journey was concerned, the same was not required to be given under the Rules and the other documents, in particular the letter of Executive Engineer dt. 10th April, 1996, was also referred by the petitioner showing the presence of the entire audit team members. 15. Petitioner has pleaded in his petition that one witness Vishnu Pathak, Executive Officer who were produced on behalf of the department gave evidence on 11th August, 1997 before the Enquiry Officer and on the same day he was cross-examined by the petitioner as well. 16. Petitioner has pleaded in his petition that two other persons who were members of the Audit Team No. 5 namely Shri Ratan Prakash Darji and Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta were also served with the charge-sheet with a similar charge as Charge No. 2 leveled in the charge-sheet of the petitioner. Counsel submitted that those two other members of the Audit Team, after departmental enquiry, were not found to have committed any misconduct and as such they were exonerated from this charge regarding their duty on 9th April, 1996 and 10th April, 1996. The order dt. 31st December, 1999, passed in respect of other delinquent Ratan Prakash Darji, by which he was exonerated from Charge No. 2, which was similar to the charges No. 1 & 3 leveled against the petitioner, has been placed on record as Annex. 12 and another order dt. 3rd June, 1999, in which for similar Charge No. 2 leveled against Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta, he was exonerated. 17. The petitioner has pleaded that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and no personal hearing was given to him after recording statement of witnesses. 12 and another order dt. 3rd June, 1999, in which for similar Charge No. 2 leveled against Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta, he was exonerated. 17. The petitioner has pleaded that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and no personal hearing was given to him after recording statement of witnesses. Petitioner has further pleaded that his suspension order was revoked vide order dt. 24th September, 1997. The petitioner has submitted that after Enquiry Officer had completed his enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority without considering the fact that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner, passed punishment order dt. 6th October, 1997, by which penalty of stoppage of two grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. 18. The petitioner has pleaded that immediately after receipt of the penalty order he sent a letter dt. 24th December, 1997 (Annex. 21) to the respondents to furnish him copy of the Enquiry report and copy of the evidence recorded on behalf of the Department as well as by the delinquent. The petitioner has submitted that when the respondents did not supply him copy of the enquiry report, he was left with no other choice except to file Departmental Appeal without having copy of the Enquiry report. Petitioner has filed copy of memo of appeal before this Court as (Annex. 22). Petitioner has submitted in his petition that after lapse of two years & after various representations being submitted to the authorities, the appeal was ultimately dismissed by a non speaking order and petitioner was issued communication dt. 18th May, 2000 (Annex. 24). 19. Petitioner has made a mention of adverse remarks communicated to him for the year 1995-96 & 96-97 in para 13 & 14 of this writ petition. This Court has already rejected the prayer of the petitioner permitting him to challenge the adverse remarks in the instant petition and as such this Court has not taken into account the averments made in the petition, the Court is required to see correctness of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in the instant petition. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions:— 1. The petitioner was deprived to defend himself as he was not supplied the copy of the enquiry report and Disciplinary Authority without supplying the enquiry report or giving show cause notice, issued the impugned penalty order. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions:— 1. The petitioner was deprived to defend himself as he was not supplied the copy of the enquiry report and Disciplinary Authority without supplying the enquiry report or giving show cause notice, issued the impugned penalty order. Counsel has referred to ground (B) & (H) of the writ petition wherein the petitioner has pleaded that due to non supply of enquiry report, he was deprived from the opportunity of making representation against the same. Counsel has submitted that in the memo of appeal filed by the petitioner, he had specifically raised a ground of non supplying the copy of the enquiry report, as per ground No. F in the memo of appeal filed on record as Annex.22. 2. The Enquiry Officer has failed to take into account the letter dt. 10th April, 1996 (Annex. 2) whereby the Executive Officer had clearly immediately informed to the Joint Director of the Department that audit party were present on 9th April, 1996 and since elections of Lok Sabha was to be held on 27th April, 1996, the request was made to send the Audit party after the elections were to be over. Counsel submitted that if the Department had considered the letter dt. 10th April, 1996, the charge-sheet could not have been issued to the petitioner. 3. Counsel has submitted that the discriminatory treatment has been given to the petitioner in respect of holding guilty and punishing him. The other co-delinquents and members of the Audit Party namely Shri Ratan Prakash Darji and Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta, who were issued similar charge-sheet, have been exonerated and yet in most arbitrary manner, the petitioner has been held guilty. 4. The Disciplinary Authority has not applied its own mind and has not given his own findings, as per requirement of Rule 16 (9) of CCA Rules, 1958. Counsel submitted that even the Enquiry Officer had found the charge partly proved and Disciplinary Authority concurred by holding the petitioner guilty by imposing major punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increment with cumulative effect. 5. The Appellate Authority has failed to consider the requirement of the deciding departmental appeal as per Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958. Counsel submitted that even the Enquiry Officer had found the charge partly proved and Disciplinary Authority concurred by holding the petitioner guilty by imposing major punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increment with cumulative effect. 5. The Appellate Authority has failed to consider the requirement of the deciding departmental appeal as per Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958. The Appellate Authority has issued the order without even referring the contentions raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal and in a routine/coursery manner, the Appellate Authority has only agreed with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and no independent consideration has been made. 21. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and have asserted before this Court that petitioner has been given adequate opportunity to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer and petitioner miserably failed to prove, by leading evidence, that he was not guilty of the misconduct, which was leveled against him. The respondents have pleaded in the reply that punishment order has been passed after taking into consideration the Enquiry report and representations submitted by the petitioner was duly considered and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and Disciplinary Authority are perfectly legal. 22. The respondents have further pleaded that before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner himself did not summon the witnesses in his support on two different occasions, no fault can be found with the report of the Enquiry Officer. 23. Learned counsel for the respondents has made the following submissions:— 1. The petitioner was served with the questionnair by the Enquiry Officer by sending/serving him letter dt. 19th May, 1997 (Annex. 7) and clarification was sought on as many as 8 issues in respect of petitioners alleged presence on 9th April, 1996 and 10th April, 1996 in Municipal Board, Ramgarh Shekhawati. Counsel submitted that reply which was filed by the petitioner (Annex. 8), nowhere disclosed the actual details about journey being undertaken by the petitioner on 9th April, 1996. Counsel submitted that petitioner has miserably failed to adduce any details of his journey and as such the opportunity to lead evidence which was given to the petitioner, was not availed to him and as such petitioner does not have any specific answer to the charge leveled against him about his presence being shown on 9th April, 1996. Counsel submitted that petitioner has miserably failed to adduce any details of his journey and as such the opportunity to lead evidence which was given to the petitioner, was not availed to him and as such petitioner does not have any specific answer to the charge leveled against him about his presence being shown on 9th April, 1996. Counsel submitted that in absence of details and explanation furnished by the petitioner, before the Enquiry Officer, the Department was absolutely within its prerogative to hold the petitioner guilty of charges leveled against him. 2. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a ground of non supply of the Enquiry report. Counsel submitted that the requirement of supplying enquiry report can only be mandatory, where prejudice is being pleaded & proved. Counsel submitted that petitioner has not pleaded in the instant petition as what prejudice was caused to him due to non supply of enquiry report and the Apex Court in the case of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation v. Sukhveer Singh reported in (2018) 1 SCC 231 has clearly held that mere nonsupply of enquiry report does not warrant automatic reinstatement of the delinquent employee. The delinquent employee has to plead and prove that he suffered serious prejudice due to non supply of enquiry report. 3. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the ground of discrimination and no parity can be claimed by him in respect of imposition of punishment as the other delinquents namely Shri Ratan Prakash Darji and Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta were given benefit of doubt and there was oral evidence available in favor of both the persons that they were present on 9th April, 1996. Counsel submitted that if the other co-delinquents have been exonerated in a separate enquiry, merely allegations are of identical nature will not result into exoneration of the petitioner, against whom the Enquiry Officer was separate and distinct and who conducted the enquiry separately and as such plea of discrimination can not be permitted to be raised before this Court. 4. Petitioner himself failed to produce any evidence before the Enquiry Officer despite opportunity being given to him & if petitioner did not produce any evidence, no fault can be found. 4. Petitioner himself failed to produce any evidence before the Enquiry Officer despite opportunity being given to him & if petitioner did not produce any evidence, no fault can be found. Counsel submitted that two key witnesses namely R.K. Singh and Parmeshwar Nath Sharma did not present during the enquiry proceedings before the Enquiry Officer and as such petitioner can not allege that he was not given opportunity of hearing. 5. Counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Authority himself has passed a brief order, however, the order is reasoned and speaking and as such it meets with the requirement of Rule 16 (9) of the CCA Rules, 1958 and order cannot be faulted, on the ground of non application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. 6. The Appellate Authority has agreed with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and as such the order of the Appellate Authority, even without assigning independent reasons, cannot be faulted and no violation of Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958 has taken place. 24. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 25. This Court finds that the other co-delinquent who were issued the charge-sheets, namely Shri Ratan Prakash Darji and Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta & who were part of the Audit team, came to be served with the identical charges. 24. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 25. This Court finds that the other co-delinquent who were issued the charge-sheets, namely Shri Ratan Prakash Darji and Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta & who were part of the Audit team, came to be served with the identical charges. The charge-sheet issued to Shri Ratan Prakash Darji is reproduced hereunder:— vkjksi la[;k & 2 %& ^^;g gS fd Jh jru izdk’k nthZ] lgk;d ys[kkf/kdkjh LFkkuh; fuf/k vads{k.k foHkkx] {ks- dk- t;iqj esa fnukad 15-11-95 ls 4-6-96 rd tkap ny la[;k&5 ds izHkkjh jgrs gq, uxj ikfydk jkex<+ 'ks[kkokVh ds o"kZ 94&95 ds vads{k.k gsrq fnukad 9-4-96 ,oa 10-4-96 dks t;iqj ls uxjikfydk] jkex<+ ’ks[kkokVh ls t;iqj dh ;k=k fcuk ;k=k fd;s gh mDr nksuksa fnolksa dks ;k=k djuk n’kkZdj QthZ ;k=k HkRrk] nSfud HkRrk dh jkf’k :-224-00 dk xyr Hkqxrku izkIr djus ,oa tkap ny la[;k&5 ds v/khuLFk lnL; Jh jes’k pUn] dfu"B ys[kkdkj dk xyr ;k=k HkRrk fcy] Jh gfjukjk;.k jSxj] ofj"B fyfid dk QthZ ;k=k HkRrk fcy ;k=k fn- 9-4-96 dks ;Fkkor izekf.kr dj xyr Hkqxrku djkdj jkT; ljdkj ds dks"k dks gkfu igwapkus ds Li"V nks"kh gSA** The finding of the Disciplinary Authority in respect of Shri Ratan Prakash Darji is reproduced hereunder:— Finding of Charge No.2 :- ^^Jh jru izdk’k nthZ] lgk;d ys[kkf/kdkjh ds fo:) tkjh vkjksi i=] tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr tkap izfrosnu] tkap izfrosnu ij Jh nthZ lgk;d ys[kkf/kdkjh dks vkjksi la[;k&2] 6 o 7 ls eqDr djrk gw¡A rFkk vkjksi la[;k 1]3]4 o 5 ds mijksDr fu"d"kkZuqlkj eSa mUgsa nks okf"kZd osru o`f);ka vlap;h izHkko ls jksdus ds n.M ls ,rn~ }kjk nf.Mr djrs gq;s bl izdj.k dks lekIr djrk gw¡A Jh nthZ dks fuyEcu vof/k esa tks fuokZg HkRrs vkfn dk fu;ekuqlkj Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS mlds vfrfjDr mUgsa vU; dksbZ osru HkRrk vkfn ns; ugha gksxk fdUrq fuyEcu vof/k lsokfu;eksa ds rgr lHkh iz;kstuksa ds lsok&vof/k ekuh tk;sxhA** The Charges in respect of Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta is reproduced as hereunder:— ^^vkjksi la[;k & 1 ;g gS fd Jh jes’k pUn xqIrk] dfu"B ys[kkdkj] LFkkuh; fuf/k vads{k.k foHkkx] {ks=h; dk;kZy;] t;iqj esa tc fnukad 1-6-95 ls 4-6-96 rd tkap ny la[;k 5 esa dk;Zjr Fks rc os uxjikfydk] jkex<+ ’ks[kkokVh ds o"kZ 1994&95 ds vads{k.k gsrq fn- 9-4-96 dks uxjikfydk jkex<+ ’ks[kkokVh ugha igaqps ,oa fn- 10-4-96 dks Hkh ;k=k dk xyr le; vafdr dj mDr nksuksa fnukadks dh ;k=k djuk n’kkZdj ;k=k HkRrk] nSfud HkRrk dh jkf’k #- 217@& dk xyr Hkqxrku izkIr djus ds nks"kh gSA vkjksi la[;k& 2 ;g gS fd Jh jes’kpUn xqIrk] dfu"B ys[kkdkj] LFkkuh; fuf/k vads{k.k foHkkx] {ks=h; dk;kZy;] t;iqj esa tc fn- 1-6-95 ls 4-6-96 rd tkap ny la[;k&5 es dk;Zjr Fks] rc os fn- 9-4-96 dks uxjikfydk jkex<+ ’ks[kkokVh ds o"kZ 94&95 ds vads{k.k gsrq vads{k.k LFky ij ^^uxjikfydk jkex<+ 'ks[kkokVh** ugha igqaps uk gh fn- 9-4-96 dk vodk’k izkFkZuk i= gh dk;kZy; dks izLrqr fd;kA bl izdkj Jh jes’k pUn xqIrk] dfu"B ys[kkdkj fnukad 9-4-96 dk fcuk vodk’k izLrqr fd, ,oa M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jgrs gq, ,oa fnol ds osru ,oa HkRrksa dh jkf’k dk xyr #i ls dk;kZy; dks xqejkg djds izkIr djus ds nks"kh gSA** The finding in respect of Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta exonerated him from Charges No. 1 & 2 is reproduced hereunder:— Finding of Charge No.1:- ^^izdj.k ds u’ojh; xokg Jh lqjs’k ’kekZ ds c;ku] vU; xokg Jh fo".kq ikBd ds c;ku] v/;{k uxjikfydk ’kkgiqjk }kjk fn- 9-6-77 ds tkjh izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij] tkap ny ds 9-4-96 dks laLFkk esa igqapus esa ,oa 10-4-96 ds izLFkku ls le; esa c;kuksa@;k=k HkRrk fcy esa vafdr le; ds ijLij fojks/kkHkk"k ds mijkUr Hkh lansg dk ykHk vkjksih Jh jes’kpan xqIrk dks fn;s tkus ls vkjksi la[;k 1 izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA Finding of Charge No.2:- cpko i{k ds xokg Jh lqjs’k ’kekZ ds c;kuksa ds vuqlkj tkap ny ds rhu lnL;ksa] ftuesa Jh jes’k xqIrk Hkh ’kkfey gS] fnukad 9-4-96 dks 12-00 cts ys[kksa ds vdsa{k.k gsrq mifLFkr gq,A vkjksih Jh xqIrk us viuh fyf[kr cgl esa Li"V fd;k gS fd ,y , Mh 5 la[;k ds vads{k.k izkjEHk ,oa lekfIr dh lwpuk ls lacaf/kr gS vkSj ,y , Mh 1 esa vads{k.k izkjEHk gksus ds ckn tkap ny ds fdlh lnL; ds dSEi NksM+us@igqapus dh lwpuk izsf"kr dh tkrh gSA laLFkk }kjk vads{k.k izkjEHk ugha djus ds dkj.k ,y , Mh 5@1 esa lwpuk izsf"kr ugha dh xbZ ,oa oSls Hkh ;g nkf;Ro vads{k.k ny izHkkjh ^^lgk;d ys[kkf/kdkjh** dk gSA izdj.k ds pLenhr xokg Jh lqjs’k ’kekZ ds c;ku ,oa cpko i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr fyf[kr cgl ds vk/kkj ij vkjksi la[;k 2 izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSaA** 26. This Court finds that the charges leveled against the petitioner also relate to his absence on 9.4.1996, from Municipal Board Ramgarh Shekhawati and the same charge is being leveled against the petitioner of not going in the Audit team of Ramgarh Shekhawati on 9th April, 1996. The identical charges are leveled against all the three co-delinquents except the difference of amount claimed by them in respect of their Traveling Allowance and Daily Allowance. This Court finds that two yardsticks can not be applied while dealing with the similarly situated persons who faced the identical charge. 27. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that Shri Ratan Prakash Darji has been exonerated by giving the benefit of doubt and Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta has been exonerated due to oral evidence available in his favour, this Court finds that the Enquiry Officer in the case of petitioner has also recorded the evidence of one Mr. Vishnu Pathak, Executing Officer, Municipal Board, Ramgarh Shekhawati, however, the certificate of the Chairman has been disbelieved as the same was issued after 14 months from the date of incident i.e. on 9th June, 1997. The said difference which is sought to be pleaded by the respondents in respect of proving charges against other co-delinquents cannot be accepted by this Court for the purpose of deciding the parity of punishment which is decided by the Court against similarly situated persons. 28. This Court finds that the respondents by passing the impugned orders have committed gross violation of law and as such the orders cannot be sustained on the ground of parity of punishment. 29. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry report was not supplied to him and after directions of this Court, the same has been produced before this Court, this Court finds that the petitioner has pleaded in his writ petition that due to non supply of enquiry report he did not file proper representation before the Disciplinary Authority and his right to file a representation against findings of the Enquiry Officer, has been violated. 30. This Court further finds that the petitioner while filing the appeal had taken a specific plea in his memo of appeal that respondents did not supply him copy of the enquiry report and as such he was prevented from filing a proper representation. 30. This Court further finds that the petitioner while filing the appeal had taken a specific plea in his memo of appeal that respondents did not supply him copy of the enquiry report and as such he was prevented from filing a proper representation. This Court finds that the Appellate Authority has even not bothered to refer the pleas, which were raised by the petitioner. In the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation v. Sukhveer Singh (Supra), the Apex Court had taken into account the situation where from the record, it was found that the denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee by not furnishing the enquiry report, was not proved as the delinquent did not raise the objections, as how he was prejudiced due to non supply of the report of the Enquiry Officer before issuance of show cause notice. 31. The Apex Court was considering the specific issue with regard to plea being taken by the delinquent due to non supply of the enquiry report. 32. This Court finds that the petitioner in the instant case has specifically pleaded, which is further proved by the memo of appeal wherein he had made a specific case of prejudice and as such judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondent is of little assistance to him. 33. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority has not applied its independent mind and has not given his findings on each charge leveled against the petitioner, this Court finds that as per Rule 16 (9) of the CCA Rules, 1958, the Disciplinary Authority after considering record of the enquiry, has to given and record his own finding on the charge. A perusal of the impugned penalty order reveals that the Disciplinary Authority only referred to the enquiry report and further found that the charges have been fully established against the petitioner and there was justification to pass the penalty order as petitioner had exceeded his position by drawing Traveling Allowance and Daily Allowance without undertaking the journey on 9th April, 1996. 34. This Court finds that the Enquiry Officer himself has not found all the three charges fully proved against the petitioner and he has only recorded a finding that charge Nos. 1-3 are partially proved. 34. This Court finds that the Enquiry Officer himself has not found all the three charges fully proved against the petitioner and he has only recorded a finding that charge Nos. 1-3 are partially proved. This Court finds it difficult to accept the plea of the respondents that the Disciplinary Authority has applied its mind and only a short order is passed but the same is speaking and containing reasons. It is clear from the record that the Enquiry Officer himself found that the charge of not attending the duty on 10th April, 1996, as part of audit party, is not proved against the petitioner and only charge which is partially proved against the petitioner is in respect of his absence and drawing the amount from the Government for undertaking journey on 9th April, 1996. 35. The Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered as in what manner the charge of absence on 9th April, 1996, was proved against the petitioner and charge of attending the office on 10th April, 1996 not proved against the petitioner, and it had Corelation and how the misconduct was committed. The report of the Enquiry Officer, the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer is reproduced as hereunder:— ^^vr% eSa bl foHkkxh; tkap esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gw¡ fd Jh gfjukjk;.k] o0 fy0 fnukad 10-4-96- dh uxj ikfydk jkex< 'ks[kkokVh ugha igqaps rFkk 9-4-96 dks uxj ikfydk igqapus dk dksbZ Li"V larks"ktud izek.k izLrqr ugha dj ldsA mijksDr rF;ksa lk{;] Xkokgksa ,oa miLFkkid vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr izek.kksa ds vk/kkj ij Jh gfjukjk;.k jSxj] ofj"B fyfid ds fo:) vkjksi la[;k 1] 2 ,oa 3 vkaf’kd :i ls fl) gksrs gSaA** 36. The findings of the Disciplinary Authority nowhere shows that he had considered and taken into account the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The requirement of Rule 16 (9) clearly casts a duty and the Disciplinary Authority had to record its own finding on the different charges. This Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority has not bothered himself to look into any of the charges, report of the Enquiry Officer and further did not apply his own mind. The order as such cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 37. This Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority has not bothered himself to look into any of the charges, report of the Enquiry Officer and further did not apply his own mind. The order as such cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 37. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the Appellate Authority has considered all the aspects and if he has agreed with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, he need not required to give separate & reasoned order, this Court before dealing with such objection of the counsel for the respondents, deems it proper to quote Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958. Rules 30 of the CCA Rules, 1958 is quoted as hereunder:— Rule 30: Consideration of appeals:— (I) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the Appellate Authority shall consider whether in the light of the provision of Rule 13 and having regard to the circumstances of the case the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. (2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14, the appellate authority shall consider: (a) whether the procedure prescribed in these rules 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; (b) whether the facts on which the order was passed has been established; (c) whether the facts established afford sufficient justification for making an order; and (d) whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate,[and after giving a personal hearing to Government servant to explain his case, if he desires so,] and after consultation with the Commission if such consultation is necessary in the case, pass order: (i) setting aside, reducing, confirming or enhancing the penalty; or (ii) remitting the case to authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case: Provided that: (i) The appellate authority shall not impose any enhanced penalty which neither such authority nor the authority which made the order appealed against is competent in the case to impose. (ii) no order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be passed unless the appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty; and (iii) if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority propose to impose is one of the penalties specified in clause (iv) to (Vii) of rules 14 and an inquiry under Rule 16 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, subject to the provisions of rule 18, itself hold such inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry pass such orders as it may deem fit.” 37. The perusal of Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958 clearly requires as per Rule 2 (a) of Rule 30 that Appellate Authority is to consider that as to whether the procedure prescribed in these Rules 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. 38. This Court thinks that petitioner himself has specifically pleaded in memo of appeal that due to non supply of enquiry report, there was failure of justice, & in such eventuality, the Appellate Authority was required to give his finding as to whether in the facts of the entire case, there was failure of the justice or not. The Appellate Authority cannot be absolved or abdict its duty to decide the plea raised by the delinquent by filing the appeal. The requirement as per Rule 2 (c) of Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958 further casts a duty on the Appellate Authority that as whether the facts established afford sufficient justification for making an order and whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate. 39. This Court finds that the petitioner had specifically requested the Appellate Authority to consider the facts in respect of clean chit being given to the other co-delinquents and he being singled out in, the matter of punishment. The Appellate Authority did not look into any aspect of the matter except concurred with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. 40. 39. This Court finds that the petitioner had specifically requested the Appellate Authority to consider the facts in respect of clean chit being given to the other co-delinquents and he being singled out in, the matter of punishment. The Appellate Authority did not look into any aspect of the matter except concurred with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. 40. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that if the Disciplinary Authority agrees/concurs with the findings of the Appellate Authority, it need not require to record separate reasons for rejection of appeal, the Statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, known as Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, provide the complete mechanism to decide appeal by taking into consideration the various factors as per Rule 30 of the CCA Rules, 1958, in the opinion of this Court even if the Appellate Authority agrees with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the consideration of appeal has to be made as per Statutory requirement of Rule 30 of the CCA Rules, 1958. 41. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner himself had failed to adduce any evidence before the Disciplinary Authority & his defence was closed, will not be of any assistance as the enquiry report reveals that petitioner has produced Shri Ratan Prakash Darji, Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta and Sita Ram as his witnesses. The Court finds that the Enquiry Officer has disbelieved the evidence of one person namely Vishnu Pathak and further he has disbelieved the certificate which is issued about absence of the petitioner and other persons on 9th April, 1996, as the said certificate is said to be issued by the Chairman of Municipal Board, Ramgarh Shekhawati on 9th June, 1997, this Court does not act as an Appellate Court in respect of the Disciplinary proceedings and it is only concerned with the decision taken by the Authorities by following due principles of natural justice and this Court is further concerned as whether the Enquiry Officer has taken into account the relevant material or has ignored the relevant material, which is produced by the delinquent. 42. A perusal of the enquiry report shows that the Enquiry Officer has discussed the evidence of the petitioner produced by him by a cursory manner and he has further doubted the veracity of statement given by the Execute Officer without any justification. 42. A perusal of the enquiry report shows that the Enquiry Officer has discussed the evidence of the petitioner produced by him by a cursory manner and he has further doubted the veracity of statement given by the Execute Officer without any justification. The said use of power by the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be in-consonance with law. 43. This Court finds that the impugned orders i.e. penalty order and the appellate order have not been passed by the respondents by keeping in mind the requirement of law as well as the same are in gross violation of Statutory Rules i.e. Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 and in particular Rule 30, 16 (9) of the Rules of 1958 and as such these orders deserve to be set aside. 44. Accordingly, the present writ petition succeeds to the extent of quashing and setting aside the penalty order dt. 7th December, 1996, passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The order dt. 8th October, 1997 (Annex. 20), passed by the Disciplinary Authority is quashed and set aside. The prayer of the petitioner to expunge adverse remarks communicated to him vide order dt. 24th September, 1996 & 25th October, 1997 (Annex, dt.26 & 27) is not accepted and the petition is dismissed as far as these two orders are considered. 45. The consequential order of granting benefit on account of setting aside the penalty order will be extended to the petitioner within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of certified of this order. The writ petition stands allowed, accordingly.