1. - Heard learned counsel.

2. This petition has been filed being aggrieved of the charge sheet served upon him 15.03.1997 by the respondent No. 2 -District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer.

3. The charge against the petitioner, who was working at Pokaran that between 14.05.1991 to 29.06.1991 he was attached with Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran as Stenographer and for the said period he did not type out the dictation given to him by the said Presiding Officer punctually and delayed the typing of the orders passed by the Court. The petitioner preferred this writ petition in this Court on 21.05.1997 challenging the aforesaid charge sheet. This Court after hearing the parties on 05.06.1997 stayed the proceedings of inquiry and accordingly the inquiry has not proceeded against the petitioner so far. Mr. Bhandari and Mr. Vyas for the petitioner raised mainly two submissions (i) District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer could not said to be appointing authority to the petitioner as the petitioner was initially appointed by District Judge, Pali on 03.01.1990 and later on he was transferred to Jodhpur Judgeship and since then he is working at Jodhpur, learned counsel referred to Rules 12 and 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 in this regard and (ii) after the delay of 06 years the charge sheet could not have been issued by the respondent No. 2 in view of the fact that orders were not only typed out albeit with delay as the petitioner was under transfer to Jodhpur during this period and the delay occurred on account of unavoidable reasons and after 06 years such charge sheet could not have been issued against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also informed the Court that ever since his transfer to Jodhpur the service record of petitioner has been good and no adverse remark has been communicated to him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions.State of Rajasthan v. Kaloo Singh-1971 RLW 34 , wherein the Court observed as under :

"A person appointed to a higher post in an officiating capacity holds the rank of that post but there is difference between a person who is appointed to officiate on a higher post and a person is appointed to be incharge of the current duties, in addition to his own. The Assistant Superintendent of Police, who is admittedly an authority subordinate to the Superintendent of Police and who is not formerly appointed to the post of the appointing authority either permanently or in an officiating capacity while holding charge of the current duties of the appointing authority can not exercise powers of dismissal in view of the inhibition contained in Art. 311(1) of the Constitution. In Cl.(1) to Art. 311 the word "subordinate" has reference to the rank and not the functions."
Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman & Managing Director, UCO Bank others, AIR 1995 SC 1053 :

"It is true that when an authority higher than the disciplinary authority itself imposes the punishment, the order of punishment suffers from no illegality when no appeal is provided to such authority. However, when an appeal is provided to the higher authority concerned against the order of the disciplinary authority or of a lower authority and the higher authority passes an order of punishment, the employee concerned is deprived of the remedy of appeal which is substantive right given to him by the Rules Regulation. An employee cannot be deprived of his substantive right. What is further, when there is a provision of appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority and when the appellate or the higher authority against whose order there is no appeal, exercises the powers of the disciplinary authority in a given case, it results in discrimination against the employee concerned.
State of Rajasthan v. Ashraf Khan, 1971 RLW 386 , wherein, the Court held as under :

"Where an authority higher than the one entitled under the stat