[2025:RJ-JP:35200-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 752/2025 1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Having Its Office At Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur-302005 2. The Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Registered Office At Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur-302005 ----Appellants Versus Umesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Manohar Lal Sharma, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of C-15, Malviya Nagar, Alwar (Raj.) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 03/09/2025 1. The challenge is to the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge. 2. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that once the learned Single Judge has concluded that there had been a procedural fault on the part of the administration and an opportunity should have been given to the Department to correct their mistakes and provide copy of the enquiry report and the disagreement notice to the delinquent, whereafter, the Department should have been left free to take a decision in Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs Sh. Kunj Behar Mishra: (1998) 7 SCC 84, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7 (2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary [2025:RJ-JP:35200-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-752/2025] authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the inquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” 3. Admittedly in the present case too, delinquent was not provided copy of the enquiry report which was in violation of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan: 1991 1 SCC 588. That apart, while the Enquiry Officer exonerated him from all the charges, the Disciplinary Authority punished him vide impugned order dated 25.07.2022. 4. In order to examine the contention of the appellants, we considered the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 and found that the concerned Disciplinary Authority passed an administrative dishonest order while noting that an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct detailed enquiry and that he submitted an enquiry report on 01.06.2021, deliberately it was not stated in the order that Enquiry Officer has exonerated the delinquent. He also did not give reasons as to why the concerned delinquent should be punished. The order does not reflect anything else but a personal view of the concerned Chairman-cum-Managing Director to punish the officer since the other officers had also been found guilty in the case by the Enquiry Officer. 5. We do not appreciate such an approach of the concerned Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority is expected to act [2025:RJ-JP:35200-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-752/2025] fairly and without prejudice. The entire staff of the Department treats the Head of the Department as the Final Authority who would examine the allegations fairly and dispassionately. It is expected from the concerned Officer holding the office of head of the Department to examine the cases dispassionately and also taking into consideration the enquiry report. 6. In the present case, we find that the concerned Officer who has passed the order of punishment dated 25.07.2022 appears to have shown his prejudice towards the concerned Delinquent Officer stating that the delinquent was as guilty as the other two Officers in this case. Without taking into consideration the Enquiry Officer’s report who found the other two officers to be involved in the delinquency and had been found the concerned delinquent to be not involved. Punishment order therefore, speaks volumes of the concerned Officer having his own prejudice. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the judgment passed in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Rajit Singhi: 2022 15 SCC 254, wherein we find that Two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court had examined the case where the Enquiry Officer had found the charges to be proved as against the concerned delinquent and in these circumstances, on technical grounds the Court set aside the order and directed the Disciplinary Authority to again pass fresh order. The case is distinguishable to the present case. In view thereto, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants would have no application. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings, we confirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is found to be without any merits. [2025:RJ-JP:35200-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-752/2025] 9. Accordingly, the present Special Appeal (Writ) is dismissed. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/44