ORDER : 1. The petitioner assails the orders dated 11/08/1998 whereby he was removed from the services of the Board and was not granted salary for the period from 03/04/1997 to 14/05/1998. He also assails the order passed consequently and the order passed in the appeal. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that petitioner was served with two charge sheets dated 10/04/1995 and 21/06/1995 with regard to allegations mentioned therein. In the first charge sheet dated 10/4/1995, the allegations were of his misbehaving with the superior officers of Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board. While second charge sheet dated 21/06/1995, the allegations were leveled of misappropriating the housing loan advanced by the Board and selling out of the house for which the loan was taken at the relevant time. When the charge sheets were issued, the petitioner was holding the post of President of Employees’ Union of the Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board and was working on the post of UDC with the Board. It is his case that on account of his Union activities as President, he was always taking up the cudgels with the officers of the Board who were always ready to settle their score with him. 3. Room No. 45 was allotted to him as President of Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board in the building of the Board vide the order dated 23/11/1988. The same was cancelled by the Officers and re-allotted the same to Superintending Engineer vide order dated 29/11/1994, for which the petitioner has placed on record the document showing the Acknowledge Book relating to service of order. The petitioner has preferred a Civil Suit upon receiving the order before the Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur and the Commissioner was appointed by the Civil Court to inspect the disputed room No. 45 on 05/12/1994 at 10 A.M. When the Commissioner prepared the report he mentioned in his report that the petitioner was sitting in a room on his chair and his name plate as President of Union was there on the door of the room. It was also mentioned in the report that new allottee of the room Mr. RK Sardhana, Superintending Engineer was also sitting in the room. Copy of the report was also made available to the officers of the Board. After the Commissioner had left, some altercations took place between the petitioner and new allottee. It was also mentioned in the report that new allottee of the room Mr. RK Sardhana, Superintending Engineer was also sitting in the room. Copy of the report was also made available to the officers of the Board. After the Commissioner had left, some altercations took place between the petitioner and new allottee. Along with petitioner, one Satyanarayan Pathak was also charge sheeted on 10/04/1995. Four charges were leveled. 4. First allegation was that the petitioner had put lock on the Kundi (latch) in such a manner that the gate could not be closed of room No. 45 on 05/12/1994. It was further alleged that the name plate of Mr. RK Sardhana was removed and the name of the petitioner was mentioned as Regional Chairman in red colour on the door and windows were painted in red colour. The table of Mr. RK Sardhana was also there where record lying was disturbed. 5. The second charge leveled that on 05/12/1994 at 10.15 AM Mr. R.K. Sardhana who was the Officiating Secretary of the Board along with Shri Bankim Modi, Deputy Secretary and Gulab Chand Mittal who were present in room were threatened by the petitioner to go out of the room and upon their threatening to throw them out and in this manner caused interference in the Government work. 6. It was further alleged in charge No. 3 that one Shri Bankim Modi, Deputy Secretary and Satyanarayan Pathak who were sitting in the same chamber asked the petitioner-Praveen Kumar Sharma not to cause disturbance in the Government work, however, Mr. Sharma and Mr. Pathak started abusing and beating due to which Shri Bankim Modi suffered injury in his finger started bleeding and eye was injured. Mr. Yashwant Arya, Assistant Engineer who was present in the chamber also suffered injury when he tried to pacify the situation. 7. Fourth charge leveled was that the petitioner had been suspended from the headquarters on 06/12/1994 and thereafter he remained absent from duty from headquarters on 7/12/1994 and 8/12/1994. 8. The Inquiry Officer was appointed and departmental inquiry was initiated. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Superintending Engineer was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The petitioner examined his defence witnesses. Inquiry Officer submitted its inquiry report on 30/1/1997. Vide order 03/04/1997, the petitioner was removed from service. 8. The Inquiry Officer was appointed and departmental inquiry was initiated. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Superintending Engineer was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The petitioner examined his defence witnesses. Inquiry Officer submitted its inquiry report on 30/1/1997. Vide order 03/04/1997, the petitioner was removed from service. Against the order dated 3/4/1997, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority who vide order dated 15/05/1998 set aside the order dated 03/04/1997 and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to re-hear the petitioner on representation and pass fresh order. In terms of order, the petitioner submitted his representation and his defence. the disciplinary authority again held the petitioner guilty of the charges and passed punishment vide order dated 11/08/1998 as noted above. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 which came to be decided by the Appellate Authority on 25/06/1999 holding that no new grounds has been raised by the petitioner in appeal and the appeal was dismissed. 9. In other charge sheet issued against the petitioner on 21/6/1995, the petitioner was charged with three allegations. 10. Firstly of having obtained loan from the Board and selling the house without seeking prior permission of the Board in the year 1996. 11. The second charge leveled was of having obtained loan for renovation of house in the year 1990 with the affidavit that the house was in his possession while the house had already been sold and therefore committed a grave mis- conduct as loan could not have been obtained for house which had already been sold. 12. The third charge leveled was that of payment of loan was not made at the correct rate and not followed the Rules of the Board. The Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his inquiry report dated 11/08/1998. The petitioner was held guilty of the charge and imposed punishment of removal from services of the Board. Thus, two orders have been passed on 11/08/1998 in two charge sheets removing the petitioner from services. The Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his inquiry report dated 11/08/1998. The petitioner was held guilty of the charge and imposed punishment of removal from services of the Board. Thus, two orders have been passed on 11/08/1998 in two charge sheets removing the petitioner from services. In regard to second punishment order, he preferred appeal which had been dismissed on 15/06/1999 by the Appellate Authority and review petition was filed before the Hon’ble Governer but the same was dismissed on the ground that Rule 34 of CCA Rules would not apply in relation to Agricultural State Marketing Board as the employees of the Board are not the employees of the State Government and ordered to dismiss the review petition preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 22/5/2000. In these circumstances, this writ petition has been preferred before this court. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet issued to the petitioner suffers from malice and bias as the same is actuated on account of dispute between the employees union and the officers of the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board as the petitioner has filed a civil suit against the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board and the charge sheet was served. It is submitted further that the charges themselves were not sustainable inasmuch as the room no.45 had already been allotted to the petitioner and the name plate of the petitioner, as President of employees’ union, was placed on the gate and the windows of the room no, 45 for years together since the petitioner was holding the post of President of Union since 1996. It is submitted that the inquiry report which was initially prepared was not approved by the disciplinary authority and the petitioner obtained copy in written under the Right to Information Act wherein authority has directed to prepare the enquiry report. The document has already been placed on record alongwith an additional affidavit. It is also stated that an FIR was wrongfully lodged against the petitioner in connection with the charge-sheet dated 10/04/1995 wherein the competent court has acquitted the petitioner vide order dated 05/02/1999 which shows that the charges levelled against the petitioner were baseless and on account of prejudice. 14. It is also submitted that another person Mr. It is also stated that an FIR was wrongfully lodged against the petitioner in connection with the charge-sheet dated 10/04/1995 wherein the competent court has acquitted the petitioner vide order dated 05/02/1999 which shows that the charges levelled against the petitioner were baseless and on account of prejudice. 14. It is also submitted that another person Mr. Stayanarayan Pathak was also issued a separate charge-sheet in relation to the same incident but he has been punished with only stoppage of one grade increment vide order dated 09/12/1998. Charge-sheet and order passed in his favour have been placed on record to support this argument. The reply to the additional affidavit was also filed wherein contents of the affidavit have not been denied. 15. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in terms of report of the Commissioner appointed by the court in the suit filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner has not forcibly opened the room as he was sitting in the room. Counsel submits that infact the respondents wanted to oust the petitioner out of the room. Further, it is stated that the allegations of beating of Mr. Bankim Modi by the petitioner is not sustainable as Mr. R.K. Sardhana who was allotted the room has not mentioned any such incident in his statement and Bankim Modi did not appear before the inquiry officer. During enquiry even in criminal case, Mr. Sardhana did not make any such allegation of beating and on the contrary, it has come out during the course of enquiry that the petitioner was subjected to beating by the officers of the Board itself. It is submitted that the enquiry officer was biased and did not take into consideration the facts which have come on record during the course of enquiry. It is also submitted that FIR was lodged by the petitioner and Satyanarayan Pathak against Mr. Sardhana and others with regard to the incident. As regard charge of being absent after suspension, it is stated that firstly the petitioner was not required to mark attendance after having been suspended and secondly medical prescription was placed on record alongwith leave application via telegraph to show that the petitioner had suffered injuries and was not well and had therefore sought leave on that day. Learned counsel also submitted that penalty of dismissal from service was wholly disproportionate and unjustified. 16. Learned counsel also submitted that penalty of dismissal from service was wholly disproportionate and unjustified. 16. With regard to second charge-sheet dated 21.6.1995, it is stated that the petitioner had obtained prior permission from the department vide application dated 14.04.1986 but the enquiry officer who was biased against the petitioner did not take on record the said document which was placed on record alongwith representation. With regard to charge no. 2, petitioner submits that affidavits of the purchaser of the house were placed before the inquiry officer where they have stated possession of the house continued to remain with the petitioner till 18.05.1998 and therefore the petitioner had also informed about this fact to his higher authority and therefore charge of not repaying the loan has been refuted by the petitioner and placed on record the document by which entire loan amount was repayed. Receipt and no-dues certificate have also been placed on record. It is also pointed out that out of vindictiveness and malice actuated on account of petitioner having filed a civil suit regarding to the room, an FIR was filed by the respondents. In relation to the second charge-sheet also the police has given negative final report and found that no embezzlement was committed by the petitioner. 17. Learned counsel submits that such an inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer was an eyewash and there was pre-determined approach of the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority. Learned counsel relies on the law laid down in the case of SR Tiwari vs Union of India ( 2013 (6) SCC 602 wherein the Apex Court in para Nos.24,26 and 30 has held as under: 24. The question of interference on the quantum of punishment, has been considered by this Court in a catena of judgments, and it was held that if the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, it would be arbitrary, and thus, would violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Ors., this Court observed as under: “25. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Ors., this Court observed as under: “25. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on the aspect, which is otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court Martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. 27. In the present case, the punishment is so stringently disproportionate as to call for and justify interference. It cannot be allowed to remain uncorrected in judicial review. 26. In V. Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. this Court considered the scope of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible only if it is found that it is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges and if the court comes to the conclusion that the scope of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible only if it is found to be “shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards.” In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. However, in order to shorten the litigation, in exceptional and rare cases, the Court itself can impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. 30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is “against the weight of evidence”, or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. (Vide: Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors.; Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh thr. Secretary and Babu v. State of Kerala. 18. It is submitted that the inquiry officer has failed to take notice that the payment of monthly installment was to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner and failure of deduction of installment from the his salary could not be put on the part of the petitioner as it was for the respondents to prepare the salary of the petitioner. However, for non payment of loan, the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service. On two charges, petitioner has been punished twice of dismissal from service by separate orders passed on the same date. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner also assails the order passed by the respondents in appeal and submits that while appellate authority has failed to examine the case independently and has passed completely laconic order without assigning any reason, both the appeals have been decided on the same date and the petitioner has filed a review petition but on account of malice even the review petition was rejected pointing out that the petitioner is not in Government service although he was working with Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board which has entity of the State and is governed by the CCA Rules. Officers of the Board are of IAS officers and rejection of review petition was also thus only because the petitioner was President of Union and for one or the other reason, the respondents wanted him to be ousted. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the disciplinary authority has rightly passed the impugned orders and supports the departmental inquiry proceedings. As regards the criminal case, the respondents submits that the departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings can go simultaneously and merely because the petitioner has been acquitted it cannot be said that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the charges in departmental proceedings. As regards the criminal case, the respondents submits that the departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings can go simultaneously and merely because the petitioner has been acquitted it cannot be said that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the charges in departmental proceedings. So far as punishment granted to Satya Narayan Pathak is concerned, it is submitted that in case of Satya Narayan Pathak, the inquiry officer had recommended appropriate punishment and as such the disciplinary authority passed the order of imposing penalty while in the case of petitioner it was not recommended. 21. It is submitted that even if both the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are on same facts, the result of criminal proceeding cannot effect the conclusion of departmental inquiry. Learned counsel for the respondents relies on 2013 (1) SCC 598 Deputy Inspector General of Police and another vs. Samuthiram and 2016 (1) SCC 671 (Baljinder Pal Kaur vs State of Punjab and others. 22. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 23. A look at the departmental proceedings conducted against the petitioner shows that the same cannot be treated to be in conformity with Wednesbury principle. The Apex Court has laid down certain parameters which required to be considered for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to departmental proceedings as reported in the case of Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran ( 2015(2) SCC 610 . and has held that High Court can only see whether: a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. Similarly it also says: Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i). re-appreciate the evidence; (ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. 24. Keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines, if I examine the case as set up by the petitioner, I find that there has been gross violation as inquiry has not been conducted according to the procedure prescribed. Firstly, the sine qua non for departmental inquiry is that inquiry officer should be an independent person having no personal bias or official bias. A look at the bias of the charge shows that charge No.1 to 3 are in relation to an incident of allotment of a room no. 45 for Executing Engineer of the Board who was earlier allotted and in possession of the petitioner as President of the Employees Union. A civil suit was preferred by the petitioner for restraining them from possession of the said room and a commissioner was appointed for the purpose by the civil court who found that the petitioner was also sitting in the room and at the same time officiating Secretary of the Board Mr. RK Sardhana was also sitting in the said room. However, the charges referred to allegations of threatening and beating up Deputy Secretary Bankim Modi by the petitioner and Shri Satya Narayan Pathak and also threatening to other officers of the Board, a look at the report submitted by the inquiry officer shows that he has put onus on the petitioner to prove his innocence and the concerned person who is said to have been beaten namely Bankim Modi even was not examined. The then Deputy Secretary Mr. RK Sardhana did not mention anywhere of there being any quarrel nor he makes any allegation against the petitioner. The conclusion drawn by the inquiry officer also did not show that there was any beating to cause injury to any person. The then Deputy Secretary Mr. RK Sardhana did not mention anywhere of there being any quarrel nor he makes any allegation against the petitioner. The conclusion drawn by the inquiry officer also did not show that there was any beating to cause injury to any person. The manner in which inquiry report has been prepared apparently shows prejudice of the inquiry officer towards the petitioner who is the President of the employees union. In the circumstances, there is no evidence to hold the petitioner guilty for the charges which would be in contravention of settled principle laid down by the Apex court in the case of Badrinath vs. Government of Tamilnadu and ors ( AIR 2000 SC 3243 ). 25. The Apex Court has laid down criteria following Wednesbury’s Principle to show that no person can be held guilty for charges which in ordinary course have not been proved by any evidence. Thus viewed, punishment order passed on the basis of first charge-sheet is not made out. It is also noticed that Mr. Satya Narayan Pathak alleged to have been caused injury has been punished only by imposing a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment. 26. As regard the second charge-sheet which was issued out of vindictiveness as outcome of the incident, the charge of embezzlement was not found proved in the criminal case for obtaining the loan for a house and selling of the house as the loan was taken after due permission of the Board. In these circumstances, the conclusion on the very face is wholly arbitrary and capricious that no person could ever reach to such a conclusion. I am satisfied that the authority have allowed to be influences by the irrelevant and extraneous considerations and the disciplinary authority has failed to admit admissible and material evidence which has come on record including the documents to show that the loan had been granted after due permission from higher authority after knowing of the facts, the inquiry officer has failed to take notice that the loan advanced was duly repaid, the payment of installment was to be deducted from the salary and the same was to be done by the officers of the Board. 27. This court also finds that the appellate authority has also not performed its duty as provided under the law. He was required to look into the representation and give his own findings. 27. This court also finds that the appellate authority has also not performed its duty as provided under the law. He was required to look into the representation and give his own findings. The document on record of additional affidavit which has been received under the Right to information Act also shows the underlying prejudice. It is well settled principle of law that any action actuated on the bias of inherent prejudice, malice or bias vitiates the entire action and proceedings. 28. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, the impugned orders are unsustainable in law and punishment awarded to the petitioner from dismissal of service is held to be illegal and arbitrary and accordingly the orders dated 11/8/1998 are quashed and set aside with consequential benefits deeming the petitioner continued in service. Petitioner would also be entitled of arrears of serving allowances and retiral benefits till his age of superannuation and retiral benefits after making due fixation. Exercise shall be conducted within a period of three months henceforth. 29. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.