[2026:RJ-JP:10354-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 214/2020 The Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd., (Rajasthan State Govt. Institution) Through Chairman And Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Kana Ram, Aged About 83 Years, R/o 64, Shriram Colony, Ram Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur, (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmad with Mr. Iliyas Khan HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 1. Date of conclusion of arguments 2. Date on which judgment was reserved 3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced: 4. Date of pronouncement 10.03.2026 10.03.2026 Full Judgment 13.03.2026 Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J: 1. The present Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred by the appellant claiming the following relief: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the special appeal (writ) and the order/judgment dated 06.12.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge may kindly be quashed and set aside. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper looking the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the appellant.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent–writ petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (Junior Assistant) with the appellant–Corporation and was posted at the Kota Depot [2026:RJ-JP:10354-DB] (2 of 9) [SAW-214/2020] under the supervision of the Depot Manager. During the course of a special audit conducted on 11.08.2000, certain financial irregularities and discrepancies were allegedly noticed in the functioning of the depot. On the basis of the said audit report, the respondent was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.10.2000 containing nine charges pertaining to alleged irregularities in issuance of challans, debit and credit notes, maintenance of accounts and other related matters. 2.1. The respondent submitted his reply denying the allegations and contended that he had no independent charge of the depot and was merely performing duties under the instructions and supervision of the Depot Manager. A departmental enquiry was thereafter conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges to be proved. Acting upon the said report, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 28.06.2002 dismissing the respondent from service. The departmental appeal preferred by the respondent also came to be rejected vide order dated 01.02.2005. 2.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the respondent preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5031/2005 before the hon’ble Court, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 06.12.2019, whereby the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order were quashed and set aside with consequential benefits. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the appellant–Corporation has preferred the present Special Appeal (Writ). [2026:RJ-JP:10354-DB] (3 of 9) [SAW-214/2020] 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Corporation submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent. It was submitted that the respondent, while working as a Junior Assistant/Lower Division Clerk, was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.10.2000 containing nine charges, which were of serious nature relating to financial irregularities noticed during a special audit conducted at the Kota Depot. It was submitted that a regular departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1974, and after affording full opportunity of hearing and defence to the respondent, the Enquiry Officer found the charges to be proved. Acting upon the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 28.06.2002 dismissing the respondent from service, which was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 01.02.2005. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the respondent had an alternative efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore the writ petition itself was not maintainable. It was contended that the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the writ petition without considering the preliminary objection raised by the appellant in this regard. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. (AIR 2005 SC 3936), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bal [2026:RJ-JP:10354-DB] (4 of 9) [SAW-214/2020] Mukund Bairwa [(2009) 4 SCC 299] and Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana (1985) 3 SCC 267. 3.2. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that there was violation of the principles of natural justice on account of non-supply of the special audit report. Learned counsel contended that under the applicable Rules of 1974, there is no requirement to supply copies of documents to the delinquent employee and the rules merely provide for inspection of the relevant record. According to the appellant, the respondent was duly permitted to inspect the documents including the audit report and was granted full opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry proceedings. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge regarding violation of the principles of natural justice was wholly erroneous. 3.3. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the learned Single Judge has exceeded the permissible scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by re- appreciating the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry. It was contended that the High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot act as an appellate authority over the findings recorded in disciplinary proceedings once the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law. 3.4. It was further contended that the learned Single Judge has also erred in observing that the disciplinary authority had failed to record findings on each charge and that the order passed was non-speaking in nature. According to the appellant, the [2026:RJ-JP:10354-DB] (5 of 9) [SAW-214/2020] disciplinary authority had considered the enquiry report and the material available on record before passing the order of punishment, and therefore the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge in this regard is contrary to the record. 3.5. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in granting consequential benefits to the respondent despite the fact that he had not worked since the year 2002. It was contended that the principle of “no work, no pay” ought to have been applied and the grant of consequential financial benefits has resulted in serious prejudice to the appellant–Corporation. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prayed that the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and the present Special Appeal be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent– writ petitioner supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference in the present Special Appeal. 4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the entire charge-sheet issued to the respondent was founded upon the special audit report pertaining to the period 1999–2000, however, the said audit report, which formed the very basis of the charges, was never supplied to the respondent during the course of the enquiry proceedings. It was submitted that despite making a specific request seeking supply of the relevant documents including the audit report in order to effectively reply to the charge-sheet, the [2026:RJ-JP:10354-DB] (6 of 9) [SAW-214/2020] same were neither supplied nor made available for proper inspection. Consequently, the respondent was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings. 4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent was working merely as a Lower Division Clerk and had no independent charge of the depot. According to the respondent, he was only performing clerical duties under the supervision and instructions of the Depot Manager and other superior officers. It was contended that the audit report itself indicated that the responsibility of the depot was primarily with the officer in-charge, yet the respondent alone was subjected to the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. 4.3. It was further contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in gross violation of the procedure prescribed under the Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1974, inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer relied upon the audit report without placing the same in evidence during the enquiry. It was submitted that the respondent was never afforded a proper opportunity to rebut the material relied upon against him and therefore the entire enquiry stood vitiated. 4.4. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the disciplinary authority failed to record specific findings on each of the charges as required under the applicable rules. It was argued that the punishment order merely reproduced general observations without discussing the individual charges or the [2026:RJ-JP:10354-DB] (7 of 9) [SAW-214/2020] evidence relating thereto, which clearly demonstrates non- application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority. 4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that even the appellate authority rejected the departmental appeal by a non-speaking order without considering the grounds raised by the respondent. It was therefore contended that both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority failed to discharge their statutory obligations under the Rules of 1974. 4.6. Learned counsel also pointed out that in respect of similar allegations arising out of the same audit report, a senior officer namely K.C. Gupta, Assistant General Manager, who was primarily responsible for the affairs of the depot, was ultimately inflicted with a minor penalty in appeal, whereas the respondent, who was holding the lowest rank of the establishment, was dismissed from service. Such discriminatory treatment, according to the respondent, clearly demonstrated arbitrariness in the disciplinary action. 4.7. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel contended that non-supply of documents relied upon in disciplinary proceedings amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and renders the enquiry unsustainable. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge, upon examining the material on record, rightly concluded that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from violation of the principles of natural justice as well as non-compliance with the statutory rules. [2026:RJ-JP:10354-DB] (8 of 9) [SAW-214/2020] 4.8. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prayed that the present Special Appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and considered the judgments cited at the Bar. 5.1. This Court finds that the charges levelled against the respondent were primarily based upon the special audit report, which admittedly formed the foundation of the disciplinary proceedings. However, from the material available on record, it is apparent that the said audit report was neither supplied to the respondent nor properly produced during the course of enquiry so as to enable the respondent to effectively defend himself. The denial of such material document, which constituted the very basis of the charges, clearly results in denial of reasonable opportunity to the delinquent employee and amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. 5.2. This Court further notes that the respondent was working merely as a Lower Division Clerk, having no independent charge of the depot. The record indicates that the functioning of the depot was under the supervision and control of the officer in-charge. Significantly, in relation to the same set of audit irregularities, a senior officer namely K.C. Gupta, Assistant General Manager , who was entrusted with the overall responsibility of the depot, was ultimately inflicted with only a minor penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect in appeal. In contrast, the respondent, who was holding the lowest rank in the [2026:RJ-JP:10354-DB] (9 of 9) [SAW-214/2020] establishment and was acting under the directions of his superiors, was visited with the extreme penalty of dismissal from service . Such disparity in the treatment meted out to similarly situated employees arising from the same audit objections clearly reflects arbitrariness in the disciplinary action. 5.3. This Court also finds that the disciplinary authority failed to record specific findings on each of the charges as required under the applicable Rules governing the disciplinary proceedings. The order of punishment merely contains general observations without dealing with the individual charges or the evidence pertaining thereto. The appellate authority also failed to examine the matter in the manner required under the Rules and rejected the appeal by a cryptic order without assigning adequate reasons. 5.4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, are based upon proper appreciation of the material available on record, thus do not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. 6. Consequently, the instant Special Appeal (Writ) stands dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J Skant/-