A Disciplinary Authority must properly consider a delinquent official's representation and address the various contentions raised therein before imposing a penalty.

1. - The matter comes up before the Court in connection with S.B. Civil Misc. Second Stay Application No. 3819/92 filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the parties submit that since point involved is a short one, the writ petition itself can be disposed of finally. I find that this submission is correct. I have, therefore, proceeded to hear the writ petition itself on merits.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner S.L. Setia was posted as Assistant Engineer in Sub-Division -III of Division VIII of Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna during the year 1977. Gopi Ram Goyal was the Executive Engineer, under whom the petitioner was serving. One N.C. Garg was Junior Engineer under the petitioner. Likewise, one V.N. Sharma was also Junior Engineer under the petitioner. It is alleged that N.C. Garg in collusion with V.N. Sharma mis-appropriated 3375 bags of cement entrusted to them and the petitioner failed to discharge his duties as mentioned in Rules 55 and Rules 195 to 199 of PWF & AR and due to carelessness and negligence the alleged misappropriation was possible.

3. It appears that originally disciplinary proceedings against Gopi Ram Goyal and the petitioner S.K. Setia were commenced under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958). Later on, proceedings under Rule 16 were converted to proceedings under Rule 17 of the aforesaid Rules.

4. Following charge was framed against the petitioner:-"S.L. Setia, Assistant Engineer:-Shri S.L. Setia, Assistant Engineer while in Sub-Division III of Division VIII during the year 1977 failed to discharge his duties as mentioned in Rules 55 and Rules 195 to 199 of PWF & AR due to his carelessness and negligence, Shri N.C. Garg, Junior Engineer mis-appropriated 3375 bags of cement in collusion with Shri V.N. Sharma another Sub-Engineer, thus causing a loss of Rs. 67,500/- to the Government."

5. S.L.Setia submitted a detailed representation, copy of which is Annexing 4. In this explanation S.L.Setia pointed out that under the new accounting procedure, which had become applicable, the petitioner was not responsible for handling of stores or of accounts. According to the new accounting procedure a central store Sub-Division was formed and accounts of stores besides cash and other things were maintained by the Chief Accounts Officers Organisation and for this purpose Divisional Accountant along with Upper Division clerks were placed at the disposal of the local Senior Accounts Officers in the Chief Accounts Officers Organisation. The process of physical verification of stores/stock-taking was also put under the charge of the respective Senior Accounts Officers of the organisation. "The Material-At-site Registers" were continued to be maintained by the concerned junior engineers but their "accounting" was put under the charge of the Senior Accounts Officers, and hence the petitioner was not at all responsible for supervision of accounts or stores. In this connection he quoted 5.3(c), 5.3(e), 5.18, 5.21 of the relevant Rules. He also pointed out that in fact there was no embazzlement of 3375 bags of cement as alleged. There was only a deficiency of 370 bags of cement and this deficiency did not occur due to supervisory negligence or carelessness on the part of the petitioner. He referred to the correspondence which took place between him and the Junior Engineer V.N. Sharma in this regard. He also referred to the findings of the disciplinary authority with regard to the alleged charge of mis-appropriation of N.C. Garg, wherein it was found that no case of mis-appropriation had been made against Mr. Garg. Upon such submissions and various other contentions petitioner pleaded that he was not guilty at all and he could not be punished. By Annexure 4, the disciplinary authority rejected the explanation of the petitioner and held that since the Executive Engineer - Gopi Lal Vyas was guilty of supervisory negligence under Rules 75 to 79 of P