1. - Shri Chandra Mohan Vyas husband of petitioner No.1 was in employment of the respondents as Compounder and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under a memorandum dated 5.3.1987 issued by the disciplinary authority while exercising powers under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. The memorandum was supported by a charge-sheet and a statement of allegations relating to 13 misconducts. An explanation was submitted by the delinquent employee and after considering the same, under an order dated 24.2.1992, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations levelled.

2. The delinquent employee submitted several representations to the disciplinary authority as well as to enquiry officer with the assertion that he was facing criminal charges too for the same allegations as under adjudication in disciplinary action, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings be kept in2 abeyance till completion of the criminal case. The demand made by the delinquent was not accepted and the Enquiry Officer after going through certain official record, submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 15.12.1999. After a lapse of about six years, the enquiry report aforesaid was supplied to the delinquent employee under a letter dated 6.6.2006 with the instruction to tender explanation, if any, relating to the findings given by the Enquiry Officer. The delinquent submitted a detailed note objecting the findings given and also submitting his explanation relating to the charges, for which he was held guilty. The disciplinary authority under an order dated 21.9.2006 accepted the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension. By the same order, the disciplinary authority also ordered that the petitioner shall not be entitled for payment of salary for the period he remained under suspension beyond the subsistence allowance already paid and that period shall also be not taken into consideration for determining pensionary benefits. A sum of Rs. 57,605.04/- too was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner's gratuity.

3. The delinquent preferred an appeal as per the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 before the next higher authority and that too came to be rejected on 5.8.2008. Unfortunately, the delinquent employee died on 11.3.2009 while on tour to3 Uttarakh , hence, this petition for writ to challenge the entire disciplinary action is preferred by his legal representatives.

4. It is submitted that the entire disciplinary proceedings were conducted behind the back of delinquent employee and, therefore, the same is nothing but in flagrant violation of the doctrine of reasonable opportunity and principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the violation of principles of natural justice is apparent as the Enquiry Officer has not at all considered the explanation tendered by the delinquent employee and also that the Enquiry Officer prescribe findings without consideration of each and every charge independently.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry report is also not speaking one as required to be as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1121 . The order passed by the disciplinary authority is also questioned with the assertion that the same is in violation of the provisions of Rule 16(9) of the Rules of 1958. While depicting the order of appellate authority bad, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is not in accordance with Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958.

6. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents emphasising that the delinquent employee was not at all co-operating with the enquiry proceedings, therefore, the Enquiry Officer relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution through Presenting Officer gave a definite finding. I