Order : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders Annex.P/6 and Annex.P/7 dated 30.03.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order Annex.P/9 dated 05.11.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority. 2. Facts relevant for adjudication of the instant writ petition are that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working on the post of Manager (S) under the respondent Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills. The General Manager of the respondent-Mills constituted a committee of 3 members, i.e. the present petitioner, Storekeeper and an Accountant from the Sugar unit for inspection of the warehouse at Bikaner on 13.08.1997. During inspection on the scheduled day, about 732.750 kg. LD films, 1600 bottles and gunny bags were found short. In view of the deficiency in the stock of the warehouse, a ‘Panchnama’ was prepared at the site, on which, signatures of the present petitoner was also put. At that time, one Mr. Om Puri Goswami was in-charge of the warehouse at Bikaner. The deficiency found during the inspection dated 13.08.1997 was reported by the petitioner to the General Manager, Sugar Mills, Sri Ganganagar on 14.08.1997. In fact, certain complaints against the Deputy Manager Mr. Om Puri Goswami about deficiency in the stock of the warehouse at Bikaner were received by the Headquarter. Upon receipt of these complaints, the headquarter deputed Senior Manager (P & S), Jaipur to investigate the same. The petitioner working on the post of Manager of the respondent-Mill at Sri Ganganagar was also also asked to reach Bikaner on 27.08.1997. Again inspection of the warehouse was conducted, upon which it was found that 50 rolls of LD film were lying outside the warehouse, which were said to be purchased by the Deputy Manager from the supplies and that the labour of the respondent was not allowing the same to be kept in the warehouse. The labour of the Mill also called officers of the Sales Tax Department and reporters of newspapers. The Deputy Manager gave in writing to the Sales Tax Department that the said rolls were not of the company and accordingly, they seized those rolls. In view of the above, it was must for the Senior Manager and the Manager (i.e. the present petitioner) to make physical verification of the stock of LD films. The Deputy Manager gave in writing to the Sales Tax Department that the said rolls were not of the company and accordingly, they seized those rolls. In view of the above, it was must for the Senior Manager and the Manager (i.e. the present petitioner) to make physical verification of the stock of LD films. Upon verification of the stock, the LD films were found short to the tune of 1054.270 kg. The waste pouch film was also weighed and the same was found in excess by 435 kg than the allowed limit of wastage. The Deputy Manager Mr. Om Puri Goswami was charge-sheeted for the deficiency. At the same time, the present petitioner, who was member of the inspection team, was also subjected to disciplinary proceedings. 3. A charge-sheet dated 15.10.1997 was served upon the petitioner, whereby certain allegations were levlled against him. It was mentioned in the charge-sheet that the petitioner was the member of the inspection team on 13.08.1997 and deficiency in the warehouse was reported by him to the higher authorities, whereas after few days, when the inspection was done on 27.08.1997, in which also the petitioner was a member of the inspection team, therein the deficiency was found increased and hence, the petitioner is responsible for dereliction of duties and supervisory negligence. For ready reference, the contents of the charge-sheet are reproduced hereunder :- 4. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 31.10.1997, whereby he refuted the allegations levelled against him. He submitted that there was a gap of 14 days in the two inspections and if some deficiency was found in the stock of the warehouse during subsequent inspection, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for causing such deficiency. Being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry commenced against the petitioner from 13.08.1998. The petitioner submitted his written submissions before the enquiry officer on 06.03.2000. The enquiry officer concluded the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 15.05.2000. A notice dated 05.08.2000 alongwith the report of the enquiry officer was served upon the petitioner with liberty to submit his explanation within a period of 15 days. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice on 22.09.2000. For a long period, the respondent did not take any action thereafter. A notice dated 05.08.2000 alongwith the report of the enquiry officer was served upon the petitioner with liberty to submit his explanation within a period of 15 days. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice on 22.09.2000. For a long period, the respondent did not take any action thereafter. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2002, but since that was a holiday, he retired from service w.e.f. 30.03.2002. The respondents passed an order of punishment against the petitioner on 30.03.2002 (Annex.P/6), which was interim in nature, which was served upon the petitioner on 31.03.2002. A detailed order of punishment purported to be dated 30.03.2002 (Annex.P/7) was served upon the petitioner on 09.04.2002, whereby major penalties of reversion from the post as well as forfeiture of entire amount of gratuity was imposed upon the petitioner. 5. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the orders Annex.P/6 and Annex.P/7 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.11.2004 (Annex.P/9) decided the appeal and while removing the penalty of forfeiture of gratuity amount, the penalty of reversion from post was upheld. 6. Being aggrieved of the orders Annex.P/6 and Annex.P/7 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order Annex.P/9 passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders Annex.P/6 and Annex.P/7 dated 30.03.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as well as the order dated 05.11.2004 (Annex.P/9) passed by the Appellate Authority, are wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the petitioner was merely a member of the inspection team constituted by the General Manager and had no direct control or supervisory authority over the warehouse at Bikaner. The petitioner’s role was confined to physical verification of the stock and submission of factual reports to the higher authorities. The in-charge of the warehouse at Bikaner was Deputy Manager and it was not the duty of the petitioner sitting at 250 km. away from Bikaner to discharge the duties of the in-charge of warehouse. It is further contended that the deficiency noticed on 27.08.1997 had no nexus with the earlier inspection dated 13.08.1997, as there was a gap of 14 days between the two inspections during which period the petitioner had no responsibility or custody of the warehouse stock. away from Bikaner to discharge the duties of the in-charge of warehouse. It is further contended that the deficiency noticed on 27.08.1997 had no nexus with the earlier inspection dated 13.08.1997, as there was a gap of 14 days between the two inspections during which period the petitioner had no responsibility or custody of the warehouse stock. Hence, fastening liability of supervisory negligence upon the petitioner is wholly misconceived. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the charge-sheet itself does not disclose any act of misconduct as defined under the relevant service regulations, and even if the allegations are accepted at face value, they do not constitute dereliction of duty. The petitioner was, in fact, instrumental in detecting and reporting the deficiency in the first place, and to penalize him for discharging his duty with diligence is perverse and unjust. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not responsible for supervisory negligence, rather there was no occasion for him to discharge supervisory duties, rather it was a case where he was just a member of the designated inspection team constituted under the orders of the General Manager of the respondent-Mill. 9. Learned counsel also places reliance on the subsequent disciplinary proceedings initiated against Mr. Om Puri Goswami, the Deputy Manager who was the warehouse in- charge at the relevant time. It is submitted that although an enquiry was initiated against Mr. Goswami, the Enquiry Officer did not find him guilty and exonerated him of all the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, being dissatisfied with the report, called upon him to show cause why major penalty should not be imposed and ultimately imposed punishment of reversion by one stage along with recovery of alleged loss vide order dated 30.03.2002. Mr. Goswami challenged the said order before this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1478/2002 , which was allowed vide order dated 09.07.2025 on the ground that no notice of disagreement disclosing reasons had been issued before imposing penalty, and therefore the punishment was without following due process of law. The impugned order was consequently quashed with all consequential benefits. The petitioner contends that his case stands on a better footing, since he was not even in charge of the warehouse, and his alleged negligence, if any, could never be more aggravated than that of the warehouse-in-charge who has now been fully exonerated. 10. The impugned order was consequently quashed with all consequential benefits. The petitioner contends that his case stands on a better footing, since he was not even in charge of the warehouse, and his alleged negligence, if any, could never be more aggravated than that of the warehouse-in-charge who has now been fully exonerated. 10. It is also argued that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from procedural irregularities inasmuch as the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse, not based on evidence, and the Disciplinary Authority has failed to record any independent reasons while imposing the penalty. The impugned order of punishment was passed on the date of the petitioner’s retirement, which itself shows mala fides and colourable exercise of power. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned orders be quashed and the petitioner be held entitled to all consequential benefits including restoration of seniority, pension and other retiral dues. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner, being a Manager and member of the inspection team, was under an obligation to ensure proper supervision and maintenance of stock records. The deficiency in LD films and bottles indicated gross negligence and lack of supervision on his part. It was further contended that the petitioner, by signing the inspection reports and being a senior member of the team, was responsible for ensuring that the shortage was immediately reconciled and reported to higher authorities, which he failed to do promptly and effectively. He further submits that a perusal of the physical verification reports dated 13.08.1997 and 27.08.1997 annexed with the reply as Annex.R/1 and Annex.R/2 go a long way to show that the grounds taken in the writ petition are frivolous and that due to supervisory negligence of the petitioner, the shortage and breakage in the warehouse went unabated and unchecked. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents also contends that the departmental enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the service rules, and that adequate opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. The findings of the Enquiry Officer being based on material on record cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on settled principles that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to the decision-making process, not the merits of the findings. 13. The findings of the Enquiry Officer being based on material on record cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on settled principles that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to the decision-making process, not the merits of the findings. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record including the pleadings and the charge-sheet. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Manager (S) at Sri Ganganagar and was deputed as a member of the inspection team constituted by the General Manager to inspect the warehouse at Bikaner. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner was not the in-charge of the warehouse, nor did he have any responsibility for the day-to-day maintenance, supervision, or custody of the stock. The Deputy Manager, Mr. Om Puri Goswami, was clearly in-charge of the warehouse and responsible for proper upkeep of the stock. The petitioner’s role was confined to inspection of the warehouse and submission of factual observations to the higher authorities. 14. The inspection of the warehouse on 13.08.1997 revealed certain deficiencies in the stock, which were promptly reported by the petitioner to the higher authorities. A subsequent inspection on 27.08.1997 showed an increase in the deficiency. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that there was a gap of fourteen days between the two inspections, during which the petitioner had no control over the stock or the warehouse operations. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner could not be held responsible for the discrepancies noted in the second inspection has substance. To fasten supervisory negligence or dereliction of duty upon a member of an inspection team, who had no charge of the warehouse and was merely performing a verification function, is both arbitrary and legally unsustainable. 15. It is further relevant to note that the this court while adjudicating S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1478/2002 filed by Mr. Om Puri Goswami, the Deputy Manager and in-charge of the warehouse, held him entitled to be exonerated on the ground that the due process of law had not been followed before imposing punishment, and quashed the disciplinary order against him with all consequential benefits. Om Puri Goswami, the Deputy Manager and in-charge of the warehouse, held him entitled to be exonerated on the ground that the due process of law had not been followed before imposing punishment, and quashed the disciplinary order against him with all consequential benefits. If the in- charge of the warehouse, who was directly responsible for supervision, was held not liable, then, by no stretch of imagination, can the petitioner, who was merely a member of the inspection team and not responsible for stock custody, be treated as more culpable. In fact, the petitioner had discharged his duties with diligence by detecting and reporting the initial deficiencies, thereby discharging his responsibility with honesty and integrity. 16. The manner and timing of the disciplinary action further underscore the arbitrariness of the proceedings. The interim and final orders of punishment were passed on 30.03.2002, the very day on which the petitioner retired from service, and were served upon him either on the day of retirement or thereafter. Such an action, timed to coincide with the petitioner’s superannuation, demonstrates mala fide exercise of power and is impermissible in law. Moreover, the appellate authority, while deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner, had already absolved him of financial liability by removing the penalty of forfeiture of gratuity, which was the penalty for which Mr. Om Puri Goswami had been held responsible. Consequently, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was liable for the loss of stock or any financial misappropriation loses all force. 17. It is also relevant to observe that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner suffered from procedural irregularities. The enquiry officer’s report, although prepared after taking submissions from the petitioner, does not demonstrate any independent reasoning to hold the petitioner responsible for alleged supervisory lapses. The Disciplinary Authority failed to record cogent reasons justifying the imposition of the penalty of reversion, and no basis exists to suggest that the petitioner committed any misconduct as defined under the relevant service regulations. On the contrary, the petitioner’s conduct was in accordance with the orders of the General Manager and within the scope of his duties. The appellate authority also did not pass a speaking order. 18. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of dereliction of duty or supervisory negligence. The charge against him is wholly unsustainable, both on facts and in law. The appellate authority also did not pass a speaking order. 18. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of dereliction of duty or supervisory negligence. The charge against him is wholly unsustainable, both on facts and in law. The impugned orders Annex.P/6 and Annex.P/7 dated 30.03.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order Annex.P/9 dated 05.11.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority deserves to be and are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is hereby exonerated of all charges and is entitled to all consequential benefits including restoration of seniority, pension, gratuity, and other retiral dues. 19. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. 20. No order as to costs.