ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed by calling the record of case and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- (a) The Record of the case may be called for; (b) The penalty/Punishment Order dated 18.06.2018 (Annex.17) may be quashed and set aside; (c) The orders passed by appellate authority dated 13.06.2019 (Anex.18) may be quashed and set aside; (d) The all consequential benefits of the service may be awarded in favour of the petitioner. (e) Cost of litigation and damages may also be allowed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) on 05.01.1990, whereafter, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) on 31.08.2010 and posted at Field Mechanical Division-II, IGNP, Bikaner. Prior thereto, in the year 1999, an agreement was executed between the respondent-department and a contractor for certain works and the work order was issued in favour of the contractor on 29.10.1999. 2.1. While the petitioner was posted at the site of the work on 31.08.2010, he inspected the installed machines and found that the said machines were not in a working condition, and the said issue was reported by the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer concerned, whereupon the said authority directed the petitioner not to release any payment in favour of the contractor owing to such non-satisfactory performance on the part of the contractor; the said decision of the Superintending Engineer was affirmed by the Chief Engineer concerned vide its communication dated 03.01.2012. Thus, after completion of the work, the payment towards the same was not released in favour of the contractor. 2.2. Thereafter, the Empowered Standing Committee was constituted as per the aforesaid agreement. The said Committee vide order dated 19.07.2013 ordered release of the necessary payment to the contractor, while holding that the concerned Chief Engineer and other officers were liable for non-disbursement of payment to the contractor, and subsequently, directed to initiate an enquiry against the said officers. 2.3. 2.2. Thereafter, the Empowered Standing Committee was constituted as per the aforesaid agreement. The said Committee vide order dated 19.07.2013 ordered release of the necessary payment to the contractor, while holding that the concerned Chief Engineer and other officers were liable for non-disbursement of payment to the contractor, and subsequently, directed to initiate an enquiry against the said officers. 2.3. Thereafter, the respondent-authority issued a show cause notice dated 12.08.2013 to the petitioner to defend as to why payment was not released and the department had to face proceedings before the Tribunal/adjudicating authority. The petitioner filed detailed representations on 21.09.2013 & 19.11.2013. 2.4. The respondents issued a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control, Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1958) against the petitioner and other persons; the petitioner submitted the reply of the said charge sheet. 2.5. Thereafter, the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner was undertaken and penalty of censure was imposed on the petitioner and other person, namely, Rajesh Verma vide the impugned order dated 18.06.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal/revision under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1958 against the order dated 18.06.2018 before the Hon’ble Governor, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 13.06.2019. Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inquiry was initiated on the direction passed by the Empowered Standing Committee under Clause 23 of the Agreement, but the said Committee was not having competent jurisdiction to direct initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that after joining on the post in question, the petitioner inspected the site in question and found that it was non-functional and immediately reported the matter to the Superintending Engineer concerned, whereafter the Superintending Engineer vide communication dated 22.06.2011 directed the petitioner not to release the payment in favour of the contractor. 3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was posted on 31.08.2010 in the capacity of Executive Engineer and because of the aforesaid direction by the Superintending Engineer, the petitioner did not release the payment to the contractor, and therefore, the same does not constitute any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. 3.3. 3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner was posted on 31.08.2010 in the capacity of Executive Engineer and because of the aforesaid direction by the Superintending Engineer, the petitioner did not release the payment to the contractor, and therefore, the same does not constitute any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. 3.3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had been discharging his duties with due devotion and dedication, and the petitioner, in the factual matrix of the present case, cannot be held liable for non-release of the necessary payment to the contractor, as the same was done under the directions of the higher authorities, and not at the instance of the present petitioner himself. He also submits that the disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner after 6 years of arising of cause of action, and therefore, the impugned orders are highly illegal and unjustified in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the disciplinary proceedings in question were initiated after due approval at the Competent Level vide letter dated 28.11.2016. 4.1. Learned counsel further submits that after the approval, the charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner and other person, calling upon them to submit their response thereto, and therefore, proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned action of the respondents is justified in law. 4.2. Learned counsel also submits that in the factual matrix of the present case, the petitioner was liable for non-payment in question. He further submits that the Empowered Committee gave the decision on technicalities of the case and initiation of the disciplinary proceedings was only recommended and not ordered. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) on 31.08.2010 and posted at Field Mechanical Division-II, IGNP, Bikaner. Prior thereto, an agreement was executed between the respondent-department and contractor in regard to certain works. Even after completion of the works under the said agreement, the payment was not released to the contractor. Thereafter, the Empowered Standing Committee was constituted as per the agreement. The said Committee vide order dated 19.07.2013 directed release of the payment to the contractor. Prior thereto, an agreement was executed between the respondent-department and contractor in regard to certain works. Even after completion of the works under the said agreement, the payment was not released to the contractor. Thereafter, the Empowered Standing Committee was constituted as per the agreement. The said Committee vide order dated 19.07.2013 directed release of the payment to the contractor. Subsequently, the respondent-authorities issued the aforementioned show cause notice to the petitioner to which the petitioner filed his representations. 6.1. The respondents issued the aforementioned charge-sheet against the petitioner and other persons. Thereafter, the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner was undertaken and penalty of censure was imposed on the petitioner and other person vide the impugned order. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred appeal/revision against the order dated 18.06.2018 and the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 13.06.2019. 6.1.1. 6.1. The respondents issued the aforementioned charge-sheet against the petitioner and other persons. Thereafter, the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner was undertaken and penalty of censure was imposed on the petitioner and other person vide the impugned order. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred appeal/revision against the order dated 18.06.2018 and the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 13.06.2019. 6.1.1. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the order dated 18.06.2018 as hereunder:- ^^ugj e.My }kjk QeZ ds i{k esa vfUre Hkqxrku dh Lohd`fr ds ckotwn Hkh vf/k'kklh vfHk;ark Jh lrh'k xqIrk] Jh Hkwi flag ;kno] Jh jktiky flag o Jh ih-ds- xks;y us bl lEcU/k eas Hkqxrku tkjh djus o cSd xkj.Vh fjyht djus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugh dh cfYd bUgsa tCr dj iEiksa dh ejEer djokus ds fy;s i=kpkj djrs jgs] u dsoy vf/k'kklh vfHk;ark cfYd eq[; vfHk;ark] bfUnjk xka/kh ugj ifj;kstuk] chdkusj us Hkh o"kZ 2012 esa ,d tkap lfefr xfBr dj nh vkSj lfpo] ugj e.My dks fyf[kr esa ;g lwfpr fd;k fd jktdh; fgr esa QeZ dks Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk o cSad xkjaVh rFkk ,QMhvkj fjyht fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gS A bu rF;ksa ls ;g izekf.kr gks jgk gS fd ugj e.My dh Lohd`fr ds ckotwn mijksDr leLr vfHk;arkvksa us iEiksa dh [kjkc fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, Hkqxrku ugha fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k Fkk A mDr fu.kZ; dks eq[; vfHk;ark rd dk leFkZu izkIr Fkk vkSj eq[; vfHk;ark us Hkh dHkh bl vof/k esa v/khuLFk vfHk;arkvksa dks ugj e.My dh Lohd`fr dh ikyuk gsrq funsZf'kr ;k ck/; ugha fd;k A QeZ dks vafre Hkqxrku dh Lohd`fr dh ikyuk esa Hkqxrku izkIr ugha gksus ij mlds }kjk e/;LFkrk okn ,EikWoMZ desVh ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;kA vfHk;Urkvksa }kjk vafre Hkqxrku tkjh ugha djus o cSad xkjaVh fjyht ugha djus ls jkT; ljdkj ds fgrksa dks fdlh izdkj dh {kfr ugha igqaph gS cfYd lHkh vfHk;arkvksa dk ;gh iz;kl Fkk fd mPp Lrj ls ;g lgefr izkIr dj yh tk, fd [kjkc iEiksa dh ejEer QeZ dh jksdh xbZ jkf'k ls gh djkbZ tk lds vkSj jkT; ljdkj dks dksbZ vkfFkZd Hkkj ugha lguk iM+sA ,EikWoMZ desVh ds lnL;ksa dk le; O;FkZ tkus o foHkkx dh Nfo /kwfey gksus tSls dFku fdlh Hkh vfHkys[k ls izekf.kr ugha gSA^^ 7. This Court further observes that the petitioner was posted at the disputed site and thereafter vide certain communication, he reported the matter to the Superintending Engineer regarding the machines being non-functional. The Superintending Engineer vide order dated 22.06.2011 directed the petitioner not to release any payment in favour of the contractor towards the works in question. 8. This Court also observes that in the impugned order, it was recorded that due to action of the petitioner, no loss has been caused to the State Exchequer, and also due to non-release of the payment in question no harm has been caused to the State Government. This Court further observes that there is nothing on record which could show that the conduct of the petitioner harmed the image and reputation of the department. 9. This Court also observes that the petitioner did not release the necessary payment to the contractor, but the same was done under the directions of the concerned Superintending Engineer, and thus, the petitioner has not committed any misconduct, which could justify any disciplinary action against the petitioner. This Court further observes that even the conduct of the petitioner did not cause any harm to the public revenue/State exchequer at all. 10. This Court also observes that the cause of non-release of the payment in question to the contractor by the petitioner and the allegations levelled in charge sheet against the petitioner do not even prove that the conduct of the petitioner was such which could in any way said to be sufficient to cause any harm to the reputation either of the department or of the State Government. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition. 12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 18.06.2018 and 13.06.2019, the respondents are directed to grant all due and consequential benefits to the petitioner, of which the petitioner has been deprived on count of the impugned orders. All pending applications stand disposed of.