Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal is directed against judgment of learned Single Judge dated 14.3.2005 dismissing thereby writ petition filed by petitioner-appellant. In writ petition, petitioner-appellant had challenged order dated 24.10.1992 by which penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, was awarded to him and order dated 17.5.1994 vide which appeal filed by him against aforesaid order of penalty, was dismissed.

2. Appellant V.K. Gaur has appeared in person to argue his matter whereas no one has appeared from the side of respondents to oppose the appeal. The matter was nevertheless considered on its merits taking into account the arguments raised before learned Single Judge as well.

3. Shri V.K. Gaur, the appellant has argued that learned Single Judge erred in law in holding that opportunity of hearing envisaged in Rule 17(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, `the CCA Rules'), cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is left to discretion of disciplinary authority whether or not to grant such opportunity even if demanded by delinquent. It was contended that in present case, prior to imposing penalty, disciplinary authority of appellant, namely, Director General of Police, by letter dated 31.3.1990, called upon appellant to submit his reply to the notice and granted him opportunity of personal hearing. It was stipulated in that communication that appellant may appear before said authority on any working day within 15 days. The appellant submitted his reply to the notice/memo on 29.3.1990 (Annexure-9) before disciplinary authority, in which he demanded opportunity of personal hearing. This request was made in reply submitted by the appellant in response to notice dated 7.10.1988, wherein it was clearly stated by disciplinary authority that in case appellant wanted opportunity of personal haring, he could apply for same and accordingly the appellant made that request. Having decided to grant opportunity of hearing to delinquent-appellant, respondent cannot be permitted to set up a case before this Court that giving such opportunity of hearing to delinquent-appellant was only discretionary and not mandatory.

4. It was also argued by appellant that according to provisions contained in Rule 17(1) (c) such an opportunity has to be mandatorily provided, if demanded by delinquent and this is how the said rule was construed by disciplinary authority while granting opportunity of hearing to delinquent appellant. In doing so, however, a grave illegality was committed by the disciplinary authority in that when appellant appeared before disciplinary authority i.e. the then Director General of Police Shri M.L. Kalia, he required the delinquent-appellant to make his submissions before the Assistant Inspector General of Police Shri Ganpat Lal Mathur, who provided him hearing on behalf of the Director General of Police because the Director General of Police himself was attending to some other urgent business. Yet another illegality that has crept into the matter is that order of penalty has been passed by Shri Rajendra Shekhar, who succeeded Shri M.L. Kalia. There has been utter violation of principles of natural justice and rather miscarriage of justice. Rule 17(1)(c) of the CCA Rules was thus infringed as also the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India violated.

5. In support of his arguments, appellant has relied on Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in G. Nageswara Rao vs. A.P.S.R.T. Corporation AIR 1959 SC 308; Ganpati Singhji vs. State of Ajmer and Another- AIR 1955 SC 188. Reliance was also placed on a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Har Lal vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others- WLR 1996 Raj. 661, which was cited before learned Single Judge as well. It was argued that Single Bench judgment in Har Lal (supra) was being cited for the purpose of showing that learned Single Judge even though was