[2025:RJ-JP:20466-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 477/2025 1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus 1. Jogendra Nagpal S/o Late Shri K.r. Nagpal, R/o A-302, Anukampa Residency, Shanti Nagar, Durgapura, Jaipur. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Energy, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Tibrewal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 15/05/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Mr. Karan Tibrewal, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents on advance copy. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned Single Judge has recorded erroneous finding that the provisions contained in clause (viii) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1962 (for short ‘the Regulations of 1962’) were not followed by the Disciplinary Authority. He would submit that the rule was required to be construed appropriately as the Disciplinary Authority is not required to again consider the whole material and record findings as if it were an Enquiry Officer. Relying upon the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. K. Rajappa Menon, AIR 1970 SC 748, [2025:RJ-JP:20466-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-477/2025] it is submitted that in almost identical rules applicable in that case requiring recording of finding on each charge, on facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that such a requirement, if substantially complied with, need not be looked into with technical spectacle. 4. The relevant Rule 7(1)(viii) of the Regulations of 1962, which has been considered by the learned Single Judge reads as below: “The disciplinary authority shall consider the record and findings of the Enquiry Officer and may agree with the report or may differ, either wholly or partially from the conclusions recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report. The disciplinary authority shall record its findings on each charge, if it finds the employee guilty whether he agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer wholly or partially or differs from these findings.” 5. The Rule, on the face of it, casts statutory obligation on the part of the authority requiring that the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the record and findings of the Enquiry Officer and whether or not it differs wholly or partially from the conclusions recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it shall record its finding on each charge. This statutory obligation was required to be complied with. True it is, it may not be necessary to adhere to the rules in the technical sense that findings under the separate heading have to be recorded separately. Nevertheless, the order must reflect that the authority had applied its mind to the material on record, report of the Enquiry Officer, defence taken by the delinquent employee and the reasons referring to each charge, though briefly. 6. In the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, after placing on record as to what are the allegations contained in five charges, all that has been recorded is as below: [2025:RJ-JP:20466-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-477/2025] “Shri Jogendra Nagpal, SE was heard in person on 10.05.2022 and having considered the entire record, personal submission made by him during the course of personal hearing as well as findings of Enquiry Officer, it is observed that theft of conductor from 765 KV GSS, RVPN, Phagi worth more than Rs.18 lacs is a serious lapse and surprising to see casual attitude and denial of any responsibility on part of the officer. Accordingly, I consider it appropriate to impose a penalty of stoppage of Two Annual Grade Increments Without Cumulative Effect to Shri Jogendra Nagpal, S.E..” 7. What has been stated in the order, if we may say so, is completely mechanical. The requirement of the rule has not been complied with even substantially. 8. Reliance placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Rajappa Menon (supra) is misconceived on facts. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after going through the material on record, ruled that requirement of recording finding on each charge does not lay down any particular form or manner in which the Disciplinary Authority should record its finding on each charge. It was importantly held that the requirement of rule is that the record of enquiry should be considered and the Disciplinary Authority should proceed to give its findings on each charge. Though it may not be necessary to discuss in detail the evidence and the facts & circumstances, certainly the requirement of rule would be to consider various allegations and material on record to record findings in brief. Therefore, the aforesaid decision does not come to the aid of the appellants. 9. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is, accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:20466-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-477/2025] 10. The period within which the order is required to be complied with is extended for a further period of two months from today. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/5