JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.— This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan dated February 7, 1990, reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

2. Shri S.K. Dutt Sharma, respondent herein was a Member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service since 1960. From June 1, 1966 to October 4, 1967 he was posted as Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra in District Sriganganagar. A written complaint was lodged against the respondent to the Collector, Sriganganagar alleging misappropriation and illegalities in the purchase of French letters (condoms) by the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra during the period of the posting of the respondent as Vikas Adhikari. The respondent was suspended on February 3, 1968 and a first information report was lodged with police against the respondent on September 25, 1968 and the matter was also referred to the Anti-corruption Department for taking necessary action. The Anti-corruption Department suggested that action be taken against the respondent departmentally and as such the respondent was served with a charge-sheet on April 29, 1972. The disciplinary authority after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer served a show-cause notice dated September 14, 1977 on the respondent informing him that the State Government had provisionally decided to dismiss the respondent from service and he was required to show cause against the said action. The respondent submitted his representation against the report of the Enquiry Officer. The representation submitted by the respondent was referred to the Public Service Commission which after considering the entire matter recommended the removal of the respondent from service. Thedisciplinary authority then passed a detailed order dated September 21, 1978 and after recording his finding on each charge and considering the recommendation of the Public Service Commission imposed a penalty of removal from service.

3. The respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court challenging the aforesaid order of removal from service. The learned Single Judge by his order dated April 3, 1986 dismissed the writ petition. On an appeal filed by the respondent, learned Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the order of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority and gave the following direction:

"The appellant shall be allowed inspection of documents mentioned in the three lists (Annexure 5) and will be allowed to file any additional reply, if he so desires. The department shall be at liberty to call for any of the witnesses, whose affidavits have been filed by the appellant for cross-examination. The parties would be at liberty to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence. The appellant shall also be allowed to be represented by a legal practitioner. The Enquiry Officer shall submit his report in the light of the entire evidence and material which has come on record. It is further directed that the disciplinary authority shall conclude the enquiry as far as possible within a period of nine months from the date of this order. It is directed that the appellant shall present himself before the disciplinary authority on February 14, 1990 at 10 a.m."

4. The State of Rajasthan aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Division Bench has come in appeal before this Court. We have beard learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. The disciplinary authority after considering in detail the evidence relating to the various charges recorded its finding on each charge. As regards charge No. 1. the disciplinary authority held that the department had failed to establish the first part of the said charge that French letters were not actually purchased by the petitioner (respondent before this Court). The disciplinary authority, however, found that second par