ORDER : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority. 2. By way of passing the impugned order dated 27.05.2022, the petitioner has been punished with penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect and the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order has been rejected vide order dated 10.02.2023 by the Appellate Authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner under Regulation 7 of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Employees (CC&A) Regulations-1962 (for short ‘Regulations, 1962’) wherein certain charges were framed against the petitioner wherein an enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the said enquiry, the punishment order was passed. Counsel submits that without recording any findings in terms of Regulation 7(1)(viii) of the Regulations, 1962, the order impugned has been passed by the disciplinary authority and this fact has been overlooked by the disciplinary authority, hence, on this count alone the orders impugned are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the order impugned has been passed on the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and no separate reasons were required to be recorded at the time of the passing of the order impugned. Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) & Ors. vs. K. Rajappa Menon reported in AIR 1970 SC 748 decided on 07.10.1968 has taken a similar view which has been again reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Boloram Bordoloi vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 872 decided on 08.02.2021, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. reported in AIR 2021 SC 872 decided on 08.02.2021, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that the departmental action was initiated against the petitioner under Regulation 7(1)(viii) of the Regulations, 1962 and a detailed enquiry was conducted against the petitioner for several allegations and on all five allegations a detailed finding was recorded, by which the petitioner was found guilty for charges No.4 and 5 and charges No.1 and 2 were partially established against him. Counsel submits that when the enquiry report was placed before the disciplinary authority, the petitioner was found guilty and accordingly, a decision was taken for imposing penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments upon the petitioner without cumulative effect. 7. Now the question remains for consideration of this Court is whether, the disciplinary authority was supposed to record the findings in terms of Regulation 7(1)(viii) of the Regulations, 1962. For ready reference, the relevant provision contained under the above regulation which reproduced as under: “If the report of the Enquiry Officer records findings in favour of the employee with which the disciplinary authority agrees, the disciplinary authority may make an order exonerating the employee of the charges framed against the employee. Decision under this regulation will be communicated to the employee by the disciplinary authority or the officer authorized. Substituted vide order No.128 dated 31.12.1991. further substituted vide order No.591 dt. 25-07-07 (F&R-420).” 8. Perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it specifically clear that if in the report of Enquiry Officer findings are recorded in favour of the employee or against the employee, the disciplinary authority may pass appropriate orders by recording the findings separately, but in the instant case, no separate findings have been recorded for coming to the conclusion, holding the petitioner as guilty. The petitioner was found guilty simply on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer without recording any reasons. The petitioner was found guilty simply on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer without recording any reasons. It appears that at the time of passing the order impugned, there was non application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority, that is why the order impugned has been passed in violation of the provisions contained under Regulation 7(1)(viii) of the Regulations, 1962 and this fact has also been overlooked by the Appellate Authority, hence, under these circumstances, both orders impugned are not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be and hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed. 9. It goes without saying that the disciplinary authority would be at liberty to pass fresh and appropriate orders after following the mandate contained under Regulation 7(1)(viii) of the Regulations, 1962 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.