ORDER : The petitioner who was working as Class-IV employee at the time of filing of the writ petition, has challenged the penalty order dt.25.10.1997 and order of the Appellate Authority dt.29.07.1998. 2. The petitioner while working as Class-IV employee in the year 1996, at check-post Daba-Deh (Jhalawar), was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 on 11.01.1996. It was alleged therein that the petitioner on 14.08.1995 collected sales tax from vehicle No.RRR 168 but he did not issue the receipt. The petitioner is alleged to have used the earlier receipt and marked entry on the old receipt and permitted the vehicle to go through the check-post. The allegation was of retaining amount collected against the sales tax and the petitioner by indulging in such act showed total insubordination, irregularity and committed a serious misconduct. 3. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Administration) Sale Tax Department, Kota on the same day i.e. on 11.01.1996 appointed the enquiry officer and further appointed presenting officer by a common order. 4. The petitioner has submitted that before he could give reply to the charge-sheet and statement of defence, the respondents had made up their mind to punish him and as such without waiting for the reply, the enquiry officer as well as presenting officer were appointed. 5. The enquiry officer conducted the departmental enquiry and before the enquiry officer, the petitioner submitted his reply and denied the charge levelled against him. The petitioner had specifically denied that he had not put signatures on the bill which was said to be produced showing the payment of sales tax. The petitioner further specifically refused the charge that he was involved in the entire incident and in absence of signatures of the petitioner being found to be proved on the disputed document, it could not be said that the petitioner was guilty of the charge levelled against him. The petitioner further submitted that the preliminary enquiry which was conducted in the incident did not look into very important aspect of the matter and without verification of putting seal by member of the staff or without comparison of signatures, the petitioner could not have been held responsible. 6. The petitioner further submitted that the preliminary enquiry which was conducted in the incident did not look into very important aspect of the matter and without verification of putting seal by member of the staff or without comparison of signatures, the petitioner could not have been held responsible. 6. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-III, Jhalawar who was the enquiry officer, prepared the enquiry report and found that the petitioner was present on duty on 14.08.1995 at the check-post and on the disputed bill, stamp was also of the same check-post and the amount which was mentioned on the bill, was not found to be deposited but the disputed document/bill bearing No. ST-26 and date and amount of sale tax was not clearly found to be proved in the writing of the petitioner. He further recorded a finding that the signatures on the said document was also not of the delinquent/petitioner. 7. The operative portion of report of the enquiry officer is reproduced hereunder:- ÞfoHkkxh; isjksdkj }kjk izLrqr nLrkostksa ls ;g fufoZokn :i ls ekU; gS fd fnukad 14-8-95 dks Jh cqf)jke jk.kk psd iksLV ij M~;wVh ij mifLFkr FksA ,oa vkjksfir fcy ij yxkbZ xbZ eksgj Hkh psdiksLV dh eksgj gS ,oa bl ij vafdr dj jkf'k jktdks"k esa tek ugha gqbZ gSA ijUrq vkjksfir fcy ij vafdr ,l0Vh0 26 la[;k] fnukad o dj jkf'k dh ys[kuh Jh jk.kk ls lkQrkSj ls ugha feyrh gS o ml ij fd, x, gLrk{kj Hkh Jh cqf)jke jk.kk ls de esy [kkrs gSaAß 8. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes Department, Kota by order dt.25.10.1997 considering the entire record arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was involved in the alleged incident and he was directly or indirectely found to be responsible for committing a misconduct and as such he imposed penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dt.25.10.1997. The operative portion of the order of the Disciplinary Authority is reproduced hereunder:- Þtkap fjiksVZ izkIr gksus ds mijkUr tkap fjiksVZ dh izfr deZpkjh dks miyC/k djkbZ xbZ ,oa O;fDrxr lquokbZ dk volj fn;k x;k] ijUrq deZpkjh us vufHkKrk izdV dh tcfd izfrj{kk esa deZpkjh dks dksbZ Bksl izek.k izLrqr djuk pkfg, blls Li"V gksrk gS fd deZpkjh nks"kh gSA Jh cqf)jke] p0Js0 deZpkjh dks M~;wVh pSd iksLV <kcknsg ij FkhA budh M~;wVh esa Jh cqf)jke jk.kk us ,lVh 26 tkjh dh gS vr% mudh vfHkys[k o eksgj dh iw.kZ fuxjkuh j[kus dk nkf;Ro cukrk gSA Jh cqf)jke jk.kk us vius drZO; dk fuoZgu ftEesnkjh ls ugha fd;k gSA okf.kT; dj vf/kdkjh] o`Rr >kykokM+ us viuh tkap esa rF;ksa ij /;ku ugha fn;k gSA Jh cqf)jke us vius mRrj fnukad 20-9-97 ls Li"V fd;k fd;k ^^;g fdlh vU; O;fDr }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh gSA** blls Li"V gS fd Jh cqf)jke bl —R; esa lfEefyr gS rFkk izR;{k o vizR;{k :i esa nks"kh gSA mDr leLr rF;ksa dks e/; utj j[krs gq;s ,d osru o`f) lap;h izHkko ls jktLFkku vlSfud lsok;sa ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;U=.k vkSj vihy½ fu;e 16 esa jksdh tkrh gSA bldk bUnzkt deZpkjh dh lsok&iqfLrdk esa yky L;kgh ls fd;k tkos rFkk Hkfo"; esa fdlh Hkh pSdiksLV ij ugha yxk;k tkosAß 9. The perusal of the Disciplinary Authority order shows that he disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and held that the enquiry officer did not consider the relevant fact that the petitioner was having the custody of the record and stamp and if the petitioner did not discharge his duty in a proper manner, he was to be held responsible as how the record and seal, could be misused by some other person. The Disciplinary Authority further deviated from the findings of the enquiry officer and held that the petitioner alone was responsible and his signatures were required to be presumed on the disputed document in absence of any contrary evidence. 10. The petitioner feeling aggrieved from the order of the Disciplinary Authority filed an appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rule, 1958 before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Rajasthan Jaipur. 10. The petitioner feeling aggrieved from the order of the Disciplinary Authority filed an appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rule, 1958 before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Rajasthan Jaipur. The petitioner specifically submitted in his appeal that he was the only Class-IV employee at the check-post and as many as six persons were posted at the check-post including the petitioner who were working as UDC, LDC and Gaurd and the petitioner only being a Class-IV employee, it was not his duty to issue receipt and collect Government revenue. The petitioner further highlighted in his appeal that enquiry officer in his report had already given a finding that there was no handwriting of the petitioner over the bogus receipt and as such the charge of embezzlement of Government revenue by way of releasing bogus receipt was not proved at all against him. The petitioner further highlighted the fact that Disciplinary Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes Department, Kota treated the petitioner guilty by holding ex-parte proceedings against him and he did not issue any notice before recordings his reasoning of disagreement with the enquiry officer. The Appellate Authority vide order dt.29.07.1998 has given same reasoning that since the petitioner was posted at the checkpost, it cannot be accepted that issuance of receipt was not his job. The Appellate Authority has further held that since the petitioner was posted at check-post, it was his duty to keep the entire record in intact position and if somebody else put his signatures and seal, the petitioner is still responsible for committing the misconduct. 11. The petitioner has assailed the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority & Appellate Authority in the instant petition said to be in violation of mandatory provisions of CCA Rules, 1958. 12. Mr. Subhash Bisawa, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while issuing the charge-sheet to the petitioner on 11.01.1996, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have waited for reply of the petitioner and without receiving reply/written statement of defence of the delinquent, the very appointment of enquiry officer and presenting officer on the same day i.e. 11.01.1996 is in violation of Rule 16(3) of CCA Rules, 1958. 13. 13. Learned counsel has submitted that sub-Rule 2 of Rule 16 requires that the Disciplinary Authority after framing definite charge with statement of allegations, ought to have communicated the same in writing to the Government servant, who is required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority, written statement indicating where he admits the truth of the charges or any explanation of defence he has to offer. Learned counsel submits that on the memo of chargesheets itself indicates it clearly provided 15 days time to file reply and without waiting for a single day the authority proceeded to appoint the enquiry officer as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958. 14. Learned counsel submits that the hot haste manner in which the Disciplinary Authority proceeded, speaks volumes of their predetermination to punish the petitioner. Learned counsel placed relinace on a judgment Surjeet Singh Dhillon Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in RLW 1997(2) 1343 wherein this Court has held that the Disciplinary Authority has to first issue the charge-sheet and then ask for explanation or reply and after submission of the reply and consideration thereof, the Disciplinary Authority can appoint enquiry officer. This Court held that if the enquiry officer is appointed at the time of issuing the chargesheet, the same is in violation of Rule 6(2) & 6(4) of the CCA Rules, 1958 and it violates the principles of natural justice as the Disciplinary Authority has made up his mind to hold an enquiry at the instance of the authority, who wants to have regular department enquiry against the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the enquiry officer had given specific finding of not holding the petitioner guilty of committing misconduct of issuing the bill bearing his signatures, the Disciplinary Authority without the note of disagreement and giving the reasonable opportunity against such disagreement note, could not have punished the petitioner by the impugned order. 16. Learned counsel has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority is not bound to accept the findings of the enquiry officer and in such case, he has to record his own findings and reasonings of disagreement with the enquiry officer and the same is required to be given to the delinquent and to give an opportunity of making representation against such disagreement findings. Learned counsel has submitted that sub-rule (7) of Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 provides that if the Disciplinary Authority records a different findings than the enquiry officer, the Government servant has to be given an opportunity of defending himself. Learned counsel has submitted that there is a whole some breach of sub-rule (7) of Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 and the Disciplinary Authority could not have punished the petitioner without affording him an opportunity to defend. 17. Learned counsel has further submitted that the charge levelled against the petitioner was with respect to retaining the money after collecting it from a vehicle and further issuing the bill showing the old receipt number. Learned counsel has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority never levelled the charge of improper maintenance of record against the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority, on surmises and conjectures, stratched the charge to the extent of not keeping the record intact. Learned counsel has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority could not have travelled beyond the charge which was levelled against the petitioner. 18. Per contra, Mr. Akhil Simlote, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has committed a serious misconduct of allowing the vehicle to cross the check-post after charging money from it and the petitioner had never issued a proper bill/document showing payment of sales tax. 19. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner not only took illegal gratification from the truck driver but he also fabricated the document by showing the tax to be paid. 20. Learned counsel has submitted that allegation of the petitioner that he has been deprived to defend himself because of the appointment of enquiry officer on the same day, cannot be accepted as the petitioner has given his reply before the enquiry officer and he has been given ample opportunity to defend himself by producing evidence in the regular departmental enquiry. 21. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was responsible for keeping the custody of the receipt and other documents while working as Class-IV employee at the check post and after charging money/tax, he had not issued the receipt and he further created evidence to show that tax has been paid by putting his signatures on a different bill and as such, the petitioner is guilty of serious misconduct. 22. 22. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority was within its discretion in dealing with the case of the petitioner and only penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect has been imposed. 23. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. 24. This Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority while issuing the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 on 11.01.1996 had given 15 days time to the petitioner to file his reply. The Disciplinary Authority without waiting for the reply to be filed within the stipulated time, could not have appointed the enquiry officer and presenting officer on the same date of issuing the charge-sheet. This kind of haste decision clearly reflects that the Disciplinary Authority had made up its own mind to proceed in a particular way and it was pre-determination that the petitioner is to be proceeded under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 by taking the entire exercise upto the stage of imposing of penalty. 25. The requirement of sub-rule (2), (3) & (4) of the Rule 16 specifically enumerate the stages that how the Disciplinary Authority would proceed when it issues the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958. The post or designation of a person may not be relevant for the purpose of applying the CCA Rules. The petitioner may be working on the post of Class-IV employee at the relevant time, nevertheless he was to be governed by the Rules of 1958 as is applicable to all the Government servants. 26. This Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority has violated the mandatory requirement of Rule 16(2), 16(3) and 16(4) and has acted in illegal manner. This Court in the case of Surjeet Singh (supra) has already decided the similar controversy of appointment of enquiry officer at the time of issuing charge-sheet and Court found that such action of the Disciplinary Authority is not only in violation of Rules but also in violation of principles of natural justice. This Court finds that the action of the Disciplinary Authority in appointing the enquiry officer and presenting officer is not in consonance with the requirement of law and as such their action is declared bad and illegal. 27. This Court further finds that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the penalty order while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer. This Court finds that the action of the Disciplinary Authority in appointing the enquiry officer and presenting officer is not in consonance with the requirement of law and as such their action is declared bad and illegal. 27. This Court further finds that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the penalty order while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer while considering the evidence, had given finding only to the extent that the petitioner was found to be posted at the relevant time on the check-post and the issuance of bill/stamp on the document and non-deposition of tax, were not proved as the signatures of the petitioner did not tally at all which were apperant on the documents. Once these findings were recorded by the enquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority was within its power to disagree with such findings and he had every right to take a different view. However, the requirement of sub-rule (7) of Rule 16 provides that the Disciplinary Authority if finds that the proceedings of enquiry establish charges different from those originally framed or the findings are not correct, the authority can record its own findings after giving an opportunity of defence to the delinquent. The Disciplinary Authority in the instant case has negated the findings of the enquiry officer in a very casual manner and has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner had put his signatures on the disputed document and as such it was presumed by it that the petitioner had committed misconduct and he was guilty of the charges. 28. This Court further finds that the Disciplinary Authority has also gone to the extent of levelling the petitioner with the allegation of not maintaining the record and seal etc. within his custody in a proper manner. The perusal of the charge-sheet clearly shows that the petitioner was never communicated any allegation with respect to maintenance of record and seal. The Disciplinary Authority in very casual and unusual manner arrived at conclusion that directly or indirectly it was the duty of the petitioner to keep everything in order and accordingly the Disciplinary Authority decided to impose major penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. This Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority ought to have proceeded as per the requirement of law and not to reach to conclusion that the petitioner had committed the misconduct. 29. This Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority ought to have proceeded as per the requirement of law and not to reach to conclusion that the petitioner had committed the misconduct. 29. The order of the Appellate Authority also suffers from legal infirmity. The Appellate Authority under the CCA Rules is required to consider different parameters while deciding the appeal filed by the delinquent and Rule 30 of CCA Rules castes duty on the Appellate Authority to consider the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The perusal of Rule 30 would reflect that the Appellate Authority has to consider that whether the facts on which the order was passed, has been established or not and whether the facts established afford sufficient justification for making such an order and whether the procedure prescribed under the CCA Rules has been followed or not and if not followed whether it has resulted into violation of any provisions of Constitution or in failure of justice. 30. This Court finds that once the petitioner had highlighted the fact that the Disciplinary Authority did not concur with the findings which were recorded by the enquiry officer, it could not have punished him without affording him an opportunity to defend, the Appellate Authority ought to have considered all these aspects as per the duty imposed upon it under Rule 30 of CCA Rules, 1958. The Appellate Authority has abdicated from its duty and has passed the order in a machenical manner. 31. This Court finds that the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are not sustainable in the eye of law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 32. The present writ petition deserves to be allowed & is hereby allowed and the order of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority dt. 25.10.1997 & 29.07.1998 respectively are quashed and set aside and the petitioner would be allowed all the consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to undertake exercise to release all the benefits to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.