1. - The petitioner, a member of Rajasthan Tehsildar Service, was served with a memorandum under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 with an allegation that while working as Additional Tehsildar Bidasar he made attachment in respect of land covered by khasra No.309 measuring one bigha which was in unauthorised occupation of one Mohd. Hussain and made auction of the attached stones weighing 1920 ton with consideration of Rs.700/- only. As such, an indirect advantage was provided that resulted into loss to State treasury. The petitioner by submitting an explanation dated 29.8.2001 denied the allegations and the disciplinary authority accepted the same by giving a specific finding that the delinquent cannot be held guilty for erroneous determination of weight of the attached stones as 1920 tone, however, at the same time it was also held that the petitioner is guilty for making auction in contravention of the procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Act, a minor penalty of censure, therefore, was imposed upon him. An appeal giving challenge to the order imposing penalty dated 23.10.2002 also came to be rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 5.7.2003 and a review petition giving challenge to the orders aforesaid was rejected by the Governor under order dated 28.11.2005. On basis of the penalty imposed under the order dated 23.10.2002 the respondents denied consideration for promotion to the petitioner for junior scale of Rajasthan Administrative Service. By this petition for writ the petitioner is challenging the order imposing penalty, thats confirmation by the appellate authority as well as by the reviewing authority and also the denial for promotion on the count of penalty in question.

2. The contentions of counsel for the petitioner are that:-

(1) the penalty of censure imposed under the order dated 23.10.2002 is erroneous for the reason that there was no charge against the petitioner for not adhering the procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Act while making the auction of the attached property;

(2) the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is erroneous, therefore, the promotion could have not been denied to him to Rajasthan Administrative Service; and

(3) even if it is assumed that the order of penalty is valid, then too on basis of minor punishment promotion could have not been denied as the criteria for the same is seniority-cum-merit.

3. In reply to writ petition, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner did not adhere the procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Act while making auction of the attached property and as such there is no error in the penalty imposed. So far as promotion to Rajasthan Administrative Service is concerned, it is stated by the respondents that those promotions were made on adhoc basis and case of the petitioner was not considered on the count that he suffered with a penalty of censure.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions.

5. It is not in dispute that allegation against the petitioner under the disciplinary action was that he while working as Additional Tehsildar, Bidasar auctioned attached property i.e. of stone weighing 1920 ton @ Rs.700/- and as such he caused loss to the State treasury. The disciplinary authority in most unambiguous terms reached at the conclusion that the delinquent cannot be held guilty for causing any loss to the State treasury as there was no definite evidence to establish the exact quantum of attached stones. As a matter of fact there was no allegation against the petitioner that he failed to adhere the procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Act for making auction of attached property. As such, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is apparently without jurisdiction. True it is that in the charge reference is given that the delinquent employee should have imposed a fine as per Section 89(7) of the Land Revenue Act but for that the petitioner ha