It is necessary for the disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent Government servant in all cases where the disciplinary authority decides to impose any of the major penalties specified in Rule 14(iv to vii) of the 1958 Rules.

1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 2.9.83 (Annexure 4) passed by the disciplinary authority whereby a penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner.

2. In respect of an alleged delinquency of the petitioner, which he is said to have committed in the year 1966 during the period of his posting as Accounts Clerk in Panchayat Samiti Roopwas, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 1958 Rules) vide memorandum dated 21.7.77 issued by the Government of Rajasthan Department of Personnel The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 11.10.77. By an order of the Government dated 19.10.77 issued under Rule 18 of the 1958. Rules, a joint enquiry was ordered to be held against the petitioner, Shri Nuranjan Singh, the then Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Sannti Roopwas and Shri S.C. Sharma, the then Overseer. The joint enquiry was held by the Additional Commissioner (I), Departmental Enquiries, Jaipur. A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner has co-operated with the other delinquents in the commission of irregularities. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer and his conclusion, the Governor imposed the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner.

3. In his writ petition the petitioner has stated that report of the Enquiry Officer was not made available to him before passing of the order of punishment. He was not given any notice regarding the proposed punishment and he had not been given any opportunity to submit his explanation in respect of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. It is also the case of the petitioner that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which had been accepted by the disciplinary authority, are perverse inasmuch as these findings are based on no evidence. The. petitioner has also stated that no charge was levelled against him of having co-operated with other delinquents in commission of irregularities and he had no opportunity of defending himself in respect of that charge. Nevertheless the disciplinary authority agreed with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and punished the petitioner on the basis of that charge.

4. In reply to the writ petition one respondent have stated that the petitioner had failed to discharge his duties sincerely and that gave an opportunity to other delinquents to commit serious irregularities and caused pecuniary loss to the Panchayat Samiti. A regular departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner. In all 12 witnesses were examined in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner and other-co-delinquents. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and then passed the order of punishment. The respondents have stated that only a punishment of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner and it was not necessary to furnish him with a copy of the enquiry report under Rule 16 of the 1958 Rules. It was also not required to give petitioner and opportunity to explain his case before passing of the order of punishment. The respondents have denied that there has been any violation of Rule 16(10) or 16 (12) of 1958 Rules.

5. The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a penalty of withholding of grade increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty under Rule 14(iv) of 1958 Rules. Such a penalty could have been imposed only after following the procedure prescribed in Rule 16 of the 1958 Rules. That procedure however, has not been followed inasmuch as after the receipt of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority did not apply its mind to the record of enquiry and did not record its own findings on the charge levelled a