Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 728 (RAJ)

Rukam Pal Singh Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

2018-03-08

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Forester in the Forest Department against the order dated 31st December, 1991, passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annex. 18), wherein the penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed and the order dated 29th October, 1997, whereby the Departmental Appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Forest Guard and thereafter was promoted as Assistant Forester. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 1st October, 1984, wherein two allegations were levelled against him which is quoted as hereunder:- ^^vkjksi la[;k 1 % vki fnukad 21-5-1981 ls 30-9-1982 rd lgk;d ouiky ukdk lFkwj ij rSukr jgs bl vof/k esa vkids v/khuLFk ou {ks=ksa esa Hkkjh ek=k esa uktk;t dVku vkidh feyhHkxr ls gqvk tSlk fd vkjksi vfHkdFku esa vafdr gS] vr% vki Hkz"Vkpkj ds }kjk uktk;t dVku djus ds nks"kh gSA vkjksi la[;k 2 % vkjksi la[;k 1 esa of.kZr vkjksi jktLFkku flfoy lsok;s dUMDV :Yl 1971 ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj vkidk vkpj.k mDr fu;eksa dh /kkjk 3 ,oa 4 ds rgr mYya?ku gS] vr% vki feldUMDV ds nks"kh gSA** 3. The respondent-department also issued charge-sheet to the other employees of the Department i.e. Gokul Prasad (Forest Guard), Jaggannath Prasad (Forest Guard), Om Prakash Yadav (Forester), Om Prakash Verma (Forester) and Santosh Kumar (Forester) working in Forest Division, Bundi. 4. The petitioner after receipt of charge-sheet filed reply and denied the allegations levelled against him and further submitted that he was not responsible for illegal cutting of trees and there was no connivance of the petitioner at any point of time with other persons to commit the misconduct. 5. The respondents appointed the Assistant Conservator of Forest Bundi as an Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry against petitioner, Jagannath Prasad (Forest Guard), Gokul Prasad (Forest Guard), Om Prakash Yadav (Forester), Om Prakash Verma (Forester) and Santosh Kumar (Forester). 5. The respondents appointed the Assistant Conservator of Forest Bundi as an Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry against petitioner, Jagannath Prasad (Forest Guard), Gokul Prasad (Forest Guard), Om Prakash Yadav (Forester), Om Prakash Verma (Forester) and Santosh Kumar (Forester). The Enquiry Officer after recording the evidence of the other delinquents as well as of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that charges were found proved against the petitioner and it was recorded that since petitioner was posted as Assistant Forester at Check Post Satur, during his time, 9879 green trees were illegally cut and the petitioner was also responsible for cutting of trees at check post Astoli. 6. The relevant portion of the enquiry report against the petitioner is reproduced as hereunder:- ^^ukdk lrwj ds taxyksa esa Jh larks"k dqekj 'kekZ }kjk 23526 BwBksa dh x.kuk dh xbZ gS ftudks oxhZdj.k vuqlkj vuq'kklukRed vf/kdkjh e.My ou vf/kdkjh cwUnh us mDr voS/k dVku dks 3 Hkkxksa esa ekuk gS o"kZ 1981 ls iwoZ ds] o"kZ 1981 dh cjlkr ds ,oa 1982 dh cjlkr ds iwoZ rFkk 1982 dh cjlkr ds cknA pawfd Jh :deiky flag fnukad 20-05-1981 ls 30-09-1982 rd ukdk lrwj ij rSukr jgs blfy, o"kZ 1981 ls iwoZ ds BwBksa dk uqdlku 13647 BWwB buds le;fof/k ds ckgj ds gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA 'ks"k dVku 9879 BwWBksa ds fy, Loa; :deiky flag lgk;d ouiky ,oa buds v/khuLFk ouj{kd txUukFk Álkn o xksdqy Álkn lkewfgd :i ls nks"kh gSA ftlesa ls ou[k.M Lrwj dk voS/k dVku dk vk/kk Hkkx 63039 ,oa dkaV vLrkSyh dk vk/kk Hkkx 1901 dqy 4940 BwWBks ds fy, Jh :deiky flag ls lgk;d ouiky ukdk Lrwj iw.kZ :i ls ftEesnkj gSA vkjksi la[;k 1 esa of.kZr vkjksi jktLFkku flfoy lsok,sa ,.M dUMDV :Yl 1971 ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj vkidk vkpj.k mDr fu;eksa dh /kkjk 3 o 4 ds rgr mYya?ku gS vr% vki feldUMsDV ds nks"kh gSA mDr vkjksi esa of.kZr vkjksi jktLFkku flfoy lsok;s dUMsDV :Yl 1971 ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj Jh :deiky flag lgk;d ouiky dk vkpj.k /kkjk 3 o 4 ds rgr mYya?ku djuk fl} gksrk gS rFkk Jh :deiky flag lgk;d ouiky nqjkpj.k feldUMsDV ds nks"kh ik;s x;s gSA** 7. The petitioner after receipt of show-cause notice and copy of the enquiry report, submitted in his reply that during enquiry, he was denied the copies of certain documents and in absence of the same, he was prevented from submitting his defence in the enquiry. The petitioner further alleged in his reply that he was not supplied copies of statement of Jagannath Prasad and Gokul Prasad and further he was not supplied copy of the preliminary/enquiry report conducted with respect to the same incident. 8. The petitioner submitted that time and again, he had been drawing the attention of the higher authorities to send checking party and requested for police enforcement but without providing such kind of help, it was wrongly presumed by the Enquiry Officer that petitioner was guilty of committing misconduct. 9. The petitioner had further submitted that other co-delinquents namely Ashok Kumar, Om Prakash Yadav (Forester) and Gokul Prasad were members of the Checking Party and in fact, they failed to fulfill their responsibility. 10. The Disciplinary Authority after receipt of reply, passed the penalty order dated 31st December, 1991. The Disciplinary Authority found that the evidence adduced during the enquiry clearly established that for personal gains by adopting corrupt means, as many as 23523 green trees were cut and since 13647 trees were cut prior to 1981, rest 9879 trees were cut due to connivance of three Officers Namely Rukbal Singh (Petitioner), Gokul Prasad and Jagannath Prasad. 11. The Disciplinary Authority further found that the other co-delinquent Gokul Prasad was partly responsible for the misconduct alleged against him and in fact he had informed the higher authorities from time-to-time about illegal cuttings. The Disciplinary Authority further found that in the act of cutting illegal trees, money was shared between the employees and the delinquents, who were in connivance with each other by accepting illegal money. 12. The Disciplinary Authority found that petitioner was the main responsible person who was guilty of committing the misconduct alleged against him of having the green trees to be cut and further he earned money through corrupt means. The Disciplinary Authority found that Om Prakash Yadav, Om Prakash Verma and Santosh Kumar, who were working on the post of Forester, were not responsible in any manner and as such they were exonerated from the charges levelled against them. 13. The Disciplinary Authority found that Om Prakash Yadav, Om Prakash Verma and Santosh Kumar, who were working on the post of Forester, were not responsible in any manner and as such they were exonerated from the charges levelled against them. 13. The Disciplinary Authority further found that petitioner & co-delinquent Jagannath Prasad were to be punished with a penalty of dismissal from service and Gokul Prasad was punished with a penalty of stoppage of 5 annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The Disciplinary Authority also ordered for recovery @ Rs. 10/- per tree for 1866 trees and as such monthly installment was to be recovered from their salary. 14. The petitioner felt aggrieved against the penalty order and he filed the Departmental Appeal before the Appellate Authority raising his grievance with regard to the procedure not being followed in the disciplinary enquiry as well as the arbitrary order passed by the Disciplinary Authority by imposing the severe punishment of dismissal from service. 15. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 29th October, 1997, rejected the appeal of the petitioner and had also rejected the appeal of other co-delinquent Jagannath Prasad, who was also visited with penalty of dismissal from service. The Appellate Authority accepted the appeal partly, filed by the Co-delinquent Gokul Prasad and his punishment was substituted with stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect instead of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Darshan Shree, has raised the following issues before this Court assailing the impugned orders:- 1. The charge sheet issued to the petitioner did not contain the definite allegation and no details were given of number of trees alleged to be illegally cut. The Disciplinary Authority has to serve a charge sheet containing the specific allegations against the delinquent employee and in absence of the same, person is prevented from defending himself in a proper manner. 2. The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of CCA Rules 1958 and since other co-delinquents were also issued charge sheets on similar charges, enquiry ought to have been conducted under Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1958. 3. 2. The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of CCA Rules 1958 and since other co-delinquents were also issued charge sheets on similar charges, enquiry ought to have been conducted under Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 1958. 3. The documents which were required by the petitioner, was not supplied to him during the Departmental Enquiry and due to non supply of documents, the petitioner suffered and felt handicapped in defending himself. 4. The main witness of the alleged incident who lodged the FIR/complaint was not examined by the Department, namely Babudeen and as such in his absence, the charge of cutting illegal trees could not be found to be established. 5. The Disciplinary Authority after receipt of reply to show-cause notice, did not take into account the version of the petitioner and in a mechanical manner the impugned penalty order was passed. 6. The Disciplinary Authority has acted in a discriminatory manner while passing the penalty order. The other three co-delinquents were even let off without imposing any punishment and the petitioner was punished with a penalty of dismissal from service. The grievance of the petitioner is also in respect of the different treatment given to co-delinquent-Gokul Prasad (Forest Guard), who was awarded lesser punishment by the Disciplinary Authority and the same being further reduced by the Appellate Authority. The Disciplinary Authority is required to act in such a manner where two different punishments may not be imposed against similarly situated persons, if such persons faced the same charges in Departmental Enquiry. 7. The petitioner had rendered about 25 years of unblemished service and dismissal from service is a harsh punishment. The petitioner could have been visited with lesser punishment looking to his length of service and his service record. 8. The Departmental Appeal was filed by the petitioner separately and the Appellate Authority could not have decided the appeal jointly filed by different persons. 9. The petitioner was not afforded the personal hearing by the Appellate Authority before deciding his appeal and as such there is violation of statutory CCA Rules. 10. The entire exercise of punishing the petitioner suffered from the vice of "bias" as the, petitioner had approached this Court earlier on two occasions i.e. challenging the charge sheet at initial stage and challenging the penalty order without filing the statutory appeal. 10. The entire exercise of punishing the petitioner suffered from the vice of "bias" as the, petitioner had approached this Court earlier on two occasions i.e. challenging the charge sheet at initial stage and challenging the penalty order without filing the statutory appeal. The first petition was withdrawn by the petitioner and in second writ petition, he was directed to approach the Appellate Authority. Counsel submits that due to approaching this Court, respondents were acting in a "bias" manner and therefore, they were determined to punish him. 11. The statements of co-delinquent were considered for proving the charge levelled against the petitioner and as such, the statements of co-delinquents could not be read against him for arriving at a conclusion to hold the petitioner guilty. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following cases, in order to buttress his submission that if similar charges are levelled against different delinquents, the enquiry should be held under Rule 18 of CCA Rules, 1958:- 1. in the case of Kanhiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 5 RDD 2617 (Raj.); 2. in the case of Ami Chand v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2014) LabIC 4011 (Raj); 3. in the case of Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. and Ors., (2013) 137 FLR 239 (SC) ; 4. Supreme Court in C.A. No. 3674/1999 (Ramesh Chand v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors., (1999) AIRSCW 4911), dated 13th July, 1999; 5. (Karnataka High Court) in the case of M. Shanmugam v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors., (2002) LabIC 1055 18. Counsel submits that proposition of law, settled by the Apex Court and by High Court, applies to the present case as petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of penalty and as such orders are not legally sustainable. 19. The respondents have filed reply and the orders passed by the authorities are said to be legal and proper. The respondents have pleaded in their reply that petitioner has been found guilty of permitting the green trees to be cut in an illegal manner and he being the person who is directly concerned with preservation of forest, had acted in illegal manner with the connivance of the different people. 20. The respondents have pleaded in their reply that petitioner has been found guilty of permitting the green trees to be cut in an illegal manner and he being the person who is directly concerned with preservation of forest, had acted in illegal manner with the connivance of the different people. 20. The respondents have submitted that petitioner is guilty of serious misconduct and he failed to discharge his duties in a bona fide manner and he being Assistant Forester, was responsible for maintenance of the forest and it was his primary duty that trees were not illegally cut by any means. 21. The respondents have denied that there was any violation of principle of natural justice during the course of departmental proceedings or the Disciplinary Authority has acted in a biased manner. 22. Mr. Navneet Singh, counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the allegation of the petitioner that charge sheet was vague, is wholly baseless. The Department had conducted preliminary enquiry and different survey reports were collected to identify the number of trees, which were illegally cut. 23. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that petitioner intentionally has not filed the memo of allegations along with charge sheet, which prescribed the complete details about the illegal trees being cut. Counsel submitted that the petitioner was made aware about allegations levelled against him and he had throughout participated in the enquiry without any protest about charge being vague and as such the allegations of the petitioner that charge was not explicit, is without any basis. 24. Counsel has submitted that petitioner has been supplied all the documents and the Appellate Authority has recorded in its order that the documents, which were necessary for perusal and for preparing the defence, were given to the petitioner and it cannot be said that petitioner suffered due to non-supply of any vital document. 25. Counsel submitted that the petitioner was the main person who was responsible for cutting of the green trees in an illegal manner and the other co-delinquent was a vigilant employee who informed the authorities, punishment was also imposed on him, looking to the gravity of charge which was committed by him. 26. 25. Counsel submitted that the petitioner was the main person who was responsible for cutting of the green trees in an illegal manner and the other co-delinquent was a vigilant employee who informed the authorities, punishment was also imposed on him, looking to the gravity of charge which was committed by him. 26. Counsel has submitted that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is a well reasoned order and the defence set up by the petitioner has duly been considered and as such it cannot be said that petitioner has been made a victim by punishing him. 27. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 28. The first issue is with regard to the charge sheet being vague, this Court finds that petitioner has been made aware by informing him specifically that during his tenure as Assistant Forester at Check-Post Satur, there were illegal cuttings of green trees and the same was with connivance of the petitioner. The petitioner at no point of time had taken the plea before any Authority till the enquiry was completed that due to non disclosure of exact number of trees, he suffered in any manner. 29. It is also to be noted that if, a person is working on the post of Assistant Forester, the area which falls within its jurisdiction, is required to be supervised and if illegal cutting of trees take place, the authorities are required to give the details about the incident/instances of cutting of the green trees. The absence of exact number in such matter, may not be fatal. However, in the present case, the perusal of enquiry report shows that there were several survey which were conducted and preliminary enquiry was conducted before giving the charge sheet. 30. It is too late in the day to say that the petitioner was not made aware about the exact number of trees, which were alleged to be cut. 31. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if other similarly situated persons/co-delinquents were also given charge sheet for committing the misconduct, the authority was bound to conduct the joint enquiry. 32. The Rule 18 of CCA Rules is quoted as hereunder:- "Rule 18. 31. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if other similarly situated persons/co-delinquents were also given charge sheet for committing the misconduct, the authority was bound to conduct the joint enquiry. 32. The Rule 18 of CCA Rules is quoted as hereunder:- "Rule 18. Joint Enquiry.- (1) Where two or more Government Servants are concerned in any case, the Government or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceedings. (2) Any such order shall specify - (i) the authority which may function as the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of such common proceedings; (ii) the penalties specified in Rule 14 which such Disciplinary Authority shall be competent to impose; and (iii) whether the procedure prescribed in Rules 16 to 17 may be followed in the proceeding." 33. The perusal of the aforesaid rule makes it clear that when one or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the authority may make an order directing the Disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceedings. It cannot be said that the said rule is mandatory that appointing authority has to order a joint enquiry, if there are two or more Government servants concerned. 34. The very language of the rule gives discretion to the authority either to proceed under Rule 16 or Rule 18 of the CCA Rules. It is also to be noted that the joint enquiry, which is being prayed by the petitioner, cannot be claimed as a matter of right by an employee. It is the discretion of the authority as to whether he wants to proceed individually against the delinquent employee or wants to hold a joint enquiry. The convenience of the authority looking to the facts of the case, will not result into a right in favour of the delinquent employee that such enquiry must be a joint enquiry. Moreover in the instant case report of enquiry officer is a joint enquiry report & obviously enquiry under Rule 18 of CCA has been conducted. 35. The convenience of the authority looking to the facts of the case, will not result into a right in favour of the delinquent employee that such enquiry must be a joint enquiry. Moreover in the instant case report of enquiry officer is a joint enquiry report & obviously enquiry under Rule 18 of CCA has been conducted. 35. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner to support his submission in respect of joint enquiry, this Court finds that in the case of Kanha Lal v. State of Rajasthan the Division Bench was considering the situation, where initial proceedings were initiated under Rule 16 of CCA Rules and later on the Competent Authority ordered a joint enquiry against the petitioner and other persons. The Authority did not issue the fresh charge-sheet to the person and as such proceedings were conducted contrary to mandate of Rule 18. The Court found that if the proceedings were converted from Rule 16 to Rule 18, the petitioner in that case was prejudiced by non-observation of Rules. The Division Bench in the facts of the case found that the joint enquiry under Rule 18 requires that delinquent has to be given an opportunity to file written statement of defence and if no such right is afforded, penalty order was found to be vitiated. 36. In the humble opinion of the Court, the said judgment is of little help to the petitioner as in the instant case, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is to hold a joint enquiry and this judgment of the Division Bench is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Moreover from the record available before the Court, it is revealed that joint enquiry was conducted against all the delinquents and such objection is without any substance. 37. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents were not supplied during the enquiry and it has resulted into prejudice to the petitioner, this Court finds that the Enquiry Officer has recorded documentary as well as oral evidence and it has been recorded after considering the evidence that the charge against the petitioner is proved. 38. The Appellate Authority also in its order has specifically recorded that the petitioner was permitted perusal of the relevant record for preparing his reply and further during the enquiry, all opportunities were afforded to him. 38. The Appellate Authority also in its order has specifically recorded that the petitioner was permitted perusal of the relevant record for preparing his reply and further during the enquiry, all opportunities were afforded to him. The Court finds that in absence of specific allegation that non supply of a vital document has resulted into violation of principle of natural justice, the procedure adopted by Enquiry Officer cannot be faulted. 39. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that witnesses and in particular, the complainant of the entire episode Babudeen, was not called and as such charge was not proved, this Court finds that the Enquiry Officer has recorded the statement of as many as seven witnesses in support of charge No. 1 and it has recorded a finding that the petitioner was guilty of allowing the numbers of green trees to be cut in a mala fide manner with ill motive. 40. This Court does not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of the complainant Babudeen charge, cannot be said to be proved. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that after show-cause notice, the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered, this Court is of the opinion that bare perusal of the penalty order, reveals that the Disciplinary Authority has taken into account the reply. 41. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that penalty order passed by the authorities is discriminatory as other co-delinquent Gokul Prasad (Forest Guard) has been given lesser punishment, this Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority has specifically recorded a finding that Gokul Prasad was the person who time and again had made the authorities aware, by informing them that illegal trees were cut and he also produced documentary evidence before the Enquiry Officer to support that the charge levelled against him was not justified and he had discharged his obligations by informing the Higher Officer about illegal cutting of trees. 42. 42. This Court finds that the facts which were available in respect of conduct of Gokul Prasad were well considered by the authorities and looking to his involvement, he has been punished with a stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect by the Disciplinary Authority and later on it was reduced by the Appellate Authority with punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect. 43. The allegation of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the charges are common against the delinquents, the Disciplinary Authority is bound to give the same punishment, this Court finds that the facts which have come on record clearly distinguishes the role of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Forester and who was the overall supervisory head of the Forest Guards, who were working under him. The role of the petitioner and of Gokul Prasad is distinct and as such if the allegation and role are distinct, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in his action with regard to imposing punishment on each of the delinquent, looking to the nature of the allegations and gravity of charge. 44. The allegation that other officials have completely been exonerated as such discrimination has been committed by the respondents, this Court finds that the persons who were working on the post of Forester were not found involved in illegally cutting of trees as per enquiry report and allegation against the petitioner was distinct and a specific and as such no benefit can be taken by the petitioner by comparing his case with the other foresters. 45. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Ami Chand v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2014) LabIC 4011 (Raj) ; Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. and Ors. (2013) 137 FLR 239 (SC), the Supreme Court and this Court have reiterated the settled principle of law that doctrine of guilt applies to all who are equally placed even among the persons, found guilty. The person, who is found guilty can claim equality of treatment and there has to be parity amongst the co- delinquents in the matter of punishment also. 46. This court finds that the role which has been assigned to the petitioner in the entire incident is of different nature and as such it cannot be said that petitioner is equally placed amongst all the persons found guilty. 46. This court finds that the role which has been assigned to the petitioner in the entire incident is of different nature and as such it cannot be said that petitioner is equally placed amongst all the persons found guilty. In the humble opinion of the Court, the judgments cited by the petitioner, are of no assistance in the present facts of the case. 47. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Disciplinary Authority has imposed severe punishment of dismissal and this Court needs to interfere on the quantum of punishment, this Court finds there are findings against the petitioner that he permitted illegal cutting of green trees and that too with ulterior motive and in-connivance with other persons. The misconduct of the petitioner, is of grievous in nature and a public servant cannot be permitted to use his official position to allow the cutting of trees and further earn money by dishonest means. The nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner was serious in nature and the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment of dismissal, this Court finds that though petitioner is said to have rendered unblemished service of 26 years, yet looking to the nature of charge which was found to be proved, no interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 48. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed by the petitioner and other persons have wrongly been decided by the Appellate Authority by a common order, it would be relevant to quote Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958:- "Rule 30 Consideration of appeals: (1) 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 compiled 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 impose 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 under 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 clauses (iv) to (vii) of Rule 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." 49. The perusal of the said rule shows that that Appellate Authority is required to consider the various factors as enumerated in Sub-Rule (2) of the Rule 30 of the CCA Rules. 50. The Court finds that there is no bar under Rule 30 that if appeals are filed by different persons against the same penalty order, the Appellate Authority cannot decide the same by a common order, as the only requirement is that Appellate Authority has to keep in mind the requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 30. 50. The Court finds that there is no bar under Rule 30 that if appeals are filed by different persons against the same penalty order, the Appellate Authority cannot decide the same by a common order, as the only requirement is that Appellate Authority has to keep in mind the requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 30. The perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority clearly shows that appeal of each delinquent has been dealt with separately, separate reasoning's have been given and after considering the requirement of Rule 30 (2) of Rules of 1958, the appeal has been decided. This Court finds that no illegality can be attributed to the jurisdiction which has been exercised by the Appellate Authority, while deciding the appeal by a common order. 51. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner, is contrary to the record as the Appellate Authority has recorded in its order that petitioner was given personal hearing and as such it cannot be said that Appellate Authority has acted in an illegal manner, hence submission of the ld. Counsel for the petitioner is without any substance. 52. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents have acted in a biased manner as petitioner had approached this Court earlier on two occasions, this Court finds that the respondents considered the entire record and looking to the gravity of the misconduct not only the petitioner but one more delinquent, Jagannath Prasad has also been dismissed from service. 53. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that statement of co-delinquent does not prove the charge against the petitioner, this Court finds that as many as seven witnesses were examined in the Department Enquiry, from whose evidence, the charge against the petitioner has been proved and as such, the statement of co-delinquent will not have any relevance, when there are other independent witnesses, whose deposition are against the petitioner's misconduct. 54. This Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have acted in a bona fide manner and it cannot be said that they have acted in arbitrary manner. 55. The present writ petition does not have any force and the same is dismissed, accordingly.