The judgment emphasizes the need for a delinquent officer to demonstrate sufferance of prejudice in cases of non-compliance with natural justice principles.

S.K. Keshote, J.-This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed by the appellant, the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, against the Judgment , dated 210.1994, of the learned Single Judge in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1702/1984.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent was working as Assistant Engineer in

the Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan; he was served with the memorandum, dated 30.06.1974, under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, the Rules, 1958). Enclosed to the said memorandum, the respondent was sent the statements of charges and the allegations.

3. The Additional Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries, Rajasthan, Jaipur, conducted the departmental enquiry against the respondent on the charge-sheet served upon him vide memorandum aforesaid. The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report, which is on the record of the writ petition as Annexure-5. The enquiry officer found the charges framed against the respondent fully proved.

4. The State of Rajasthan accepted the enquiry report and under the order, dated 27.01.1977, imposed the penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect upon the respondent. By the time, it appears, he became the Executive Engineer. The enquiry report was not sent to the respondent alongwith the order of penalty aforesaid but on his application, dated 05.02.1977, it is not in dispute, the same was given to him. He prayed for supply of the copy of the enquiry report to him, as he was desireous of submitting the review petition.

5. After receiving the enquiry report, he filed a review petition to the Government of Rajasthan; the copy of the review petition is there on the record of the writ petition as Annexure-6. The Government of Rajasthan dismissed the review petition, of the petitioner, under its order, dated 12.04.1979 (Annexure-7).

6. The respondent submitted further review petition under Rule 34 of the Rules, 1958 before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The memo of review petition is on the record of the writ petition as Annexure-8. His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, Jaipur dismissed the said review petition vide order, dated 011.1984, which is there on the record of the writ petition as Annexure-9.

7. Thereafter, the respondent filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1702/1984 in this Court on 211.1984 and the learned Single Judge, under the impugned order, allowed the same, thus this special appeal on behalf of the State of Rajasthan.

8. Heard learned Counsel of the parties and perused the entire record of the writ petition and the special appeal.

9. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition only on the ground that the respondent was not served with the enquiry report, though he was punished with the major penalty. In support of the order, the learned Single Judge relied upon Sub-clauses (a) and (b) to Clause (i) of Rule 16 (1) of the Rules, 1958. The learned Single Judge has also made the reference of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case (AIR 1991 SC 471) and also referred the fact that the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case (Supra), has no retrospective applicability. The matter has been decided before the decision of Mohd. Ramzan Khans case (Supra) and the benefit thereof could not be given in favour of the respondent. But relief has been granted as the provisions of Rule 16(10) of the Rules, 1958 held not to have been complied with.

10. The learned Single Judge made also reference to the decision of the Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 311/1990, Babulal vs. State, decided on 03.01.1990; that stated to be the case of co-delinquent and the view, which has been taken by the learned Single Judge under the impugned order, was stated to have been taken therein by the Court.

11. Rule