D.P. Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner who was working as an Assistant Inspector of Co-operative Societies at Bikaner, was served with a memorandum, charge-cheet and statement of allegations by the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Rajasthan. After the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence in respect of the aforesaid charges' the Di0sciplinary Authority considered it necessary to make an enquiry and appointed the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bikaner, as the Enquiry Officer. The Deputy Registrar, Co operative Societies conducted an enquiry against the petitioner and submitted hit report by which he found the petitioner guilty of part of charge No. 1 part of charge No. 3 and of charges Nos. 4 and 5, while the petitioner was exonerated of the remaining charges. One of the charges of which the petitioner was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer was that he retained a sum of Rs. 300/- belonging to Jhunjhunu Multipurpose Co-operative Society for a long time & it was only after the Assistant Registrar directed him to (sic) the aforesaid amount that the petitioner deposited the said sum of Rs. 300/- with Rs. 3/- as interest, on January 3, 1970. This finding was based on the admission of the petitioner made in his letter dated January 3, 1970 written to the Assistant Registrar. After receiving the report of the Enquiry Officer the Registrar, Co-operative Societies served a show cause notice upon the petitioner proposing a penalty of dismissal from service, which would be a disqualification for future employment The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and after considering the same the Registrar, Co-operative Societies by his order dated March 7, 1972 directed the dismissal of the petitioner from service. An appeal by the petitioner to the State Government was also rejected. The petitioner has thereafter filed this writ petition chal enging the aforesaid order awarding him a punishment of dismissal from service.
2. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that by his application dated April 20, 1971 the petitioner asked for supply of copies of his statement and those of three other witnesses, but his grievance is that the requisite copies were not supplied to him. It may be mentioned here in this respect that the application for copies is said to have been submitted by the petitioner on April 20, 1971 and at the time although he enquiry had been concluded the enquiry report had not been submitted The enquiry report was submitted on May 2, 1971 as mentioned in para 10 of the writ petition and the show cause notice was given to the petitioner on December 6, 1971. The petitioner did not make any request for the supply of the afore aid copies after the show cause notice was served upon him, nor he made any complaint in respect of the alleged non-supply of copies of such statements either in his reply to the show cause notice or in the memo of appeal filed by him. In case a prejudice would have been caused to the petitioner on account of the non-supply of the aforesaid copies to him, then the question should have been raised by him in his reply to the show cause notice as well in his memo of appeal. In these circum tances. it cannot be held that any prejudice was at all caused to the petitioner on account of the alleged failure to supply the requisite copies. Moreover, as this question was no agitated by the petitioner either before the Disciplinary Authority or before the Appellate Authority, it cannot the allowed to be raised for the first time in these proceedings for a writ of certiorari. Learned Counsel relied upon. The Board of Revenue (Taxes), Kerala State and Anr. v. S. Parasuiama Iyer 1969 SLR 299 in support of his contention that the petitioner was prejudiced and a reasonable opportunity to show cause was not afforded to him on account of the non supply of the copies of the depositions' but in the aforesaid case the objection in that respect was clearly taken before the Appellate Authority and, therefore, the same was entertained in writ proceedings as well.
3. The second ground urged by the learned Counsel is that lists of witnesses and of documents, relled upon by the department, were not supplied to the petitioner along with the chargesheet and the statement of allegations. In this respect learned Counsel placed reliance upon sub-para (v) of para 11 of the band Book on Disciplinary Proceedings issued by the Government of Rajasthan. It is stated therein that a list of documents which are proposed to be relied upon should be supplied to the delinquent either along with the charge sheet or 'as soon thereafter as possible'. The petitioner has not complained a any stage the the lists of documents and witnesses were not supplied to him soon of or the chorgesheet was served upon him or at least before be submitted his written statements of defence It might be that the list of documents and the list of witnesses might not have been supplied to the petitioner along with the charge sheet, but to case they were supplied sometime there after no prejudice could have been caused to the petitioner. It is noteworthy in this respect that the petitioner never complained during the disciplinary prove dings, either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Disciplinary Authority or even before the Appellate Authority about the alleged non-supply of the list of documents and the list of the witnesses of him. Even in the writ petition it his not been mentioned that the aforesaid losse were not supplied to him at all or at least before he submitted him written statement of defenee. This objection as cannot be entertained at this stage as it was not raised either before the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority.
4. The third Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not afforded a personal learning by the Disciplinary Authority, although in the slow cause (sic) was mentioned that in case the petitioner desired to get appraisal hearing he should inform the Disciplinary Authority in respect thereof In his reply to the show cause notice, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ex. 9, the petitioner after submitting his explanation in detail also stated that from the reply the Disciplinary Authority would be satisfied about the innocence of the petitioner and that in case any further explain in was require then an opportunity of personal hearing be afforded by the petitioner. Thus the petitioner desired an opportunity of personal hearing only in case any further explanation was required from him. As the Disciplinary Authority did not require any further explanation from the petitioner, no personal hearing was afforded to him. Thus there was no illegality in the matter as the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice was fully considered by the Disciplinary Authority while passing its order of punishment dated March 7, 1972. The Request of the petitioner for personal hearing was a qualified one and in the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be held that any Breech of either the statutory rules or the principles of natural justice (sic) the Disciplinary Authority in this case.
5. The next submission of the learned Counsel is that the Disciplinary Authority did Dot comply with the provisions of Sub-rule (9) of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (herein after referred to as 'the Rules'), inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority did not consider toe record of the enquiry and did not give its findings on each charge, while issuing the show cause notice. In support of this submission learned Counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Nathulal v. The State and Anr. desion of the (sic) High Court in. The Union of India and Ors. v. Shashi Bhushan Biswas : AIR1970Cal545 Learned Counsel emphasized on the basis of the aforesaid decisions that the Punishing Authority should have applied its mind to the report of the Enquiry Officer and in case it agreed wholly with the reasonings and the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Authority, the Punishing Authority should say so in its order. In my view, the show cause notice Ex. 7 dated December 6, 1971 given by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies does not suffer from any infirmity inasmuch as the Punishing Authority clearly stated in the show cause notice that in view of the report of the Enquiry Officer and particularly in view of the seriousness of the charges found proved against the petitioner, the Punishing Authority tentatively decided that the punishment of dismissal from service, which would have the effect of disqualifying him from an appointment in future, be inflicted upon he petitioner A copy of the Repost of the Enquiry Officer was also sent to the petitioner along with the aforesaid show cause notice. The show cause notice read as a whole shows that the Disciplinary Authority applied its mind and that it agreed with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer as well as with the reasons for he same and, therefore, it was not necessary for the Punishing Authority in these circumstances to repeat all that waS said by the Enquiry Officer. In State of Madras v. A.R. Srinivasan AIR 1966 SC 1227 Gajendragadkar C.J. made the following observations:
In dealing with the question as to whether it is obligatory on the State Government to give reasons in support of the order imposing a penalty on the delinquent officer, we cannot overlook fact that the disciplinary proceedings against such a deliquent officer begin with an enquiry conducted by an officer appointed in that behalf. That enquiry in followed by a report and the Public Service Commission is consulted where necessary Having regard to the material which is thus made available to the State Government and which is made available to the delinquent officer also, it seems to us some what unreasonable to suggest that the State Government must record its reasons why it accepts the findings of the Tribunal. It is conceivable that if the State Government does not accept the findings of the Tribunal which may be to favour of the delinquent officer and proposes to impose a penalty on the delinquent officer, it should give reasons way it differs from the conclusions of the Tribunal, though even in such a case, it is not necessary that the reasons should be detailed or elaborate.
6. In view of the aforesaid observations it may be held that it was not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to repeat the reasons and the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in pursuance of which the show cause notice was issued, when the Punishing Authority after applying its mind agreed with the reasons and conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. Thus, in my opinion, the show cause, notice did not suffer from any infirmity in she present case.
7. Lastly the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate order Ex.12 is not a speaking older. In my opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court is Srinivasan's case AIR 1966 SC 1227 is also applicable to the Appellate Order, inasmuch as when the Appellate Authority fully agreed with the reasons and findings given by the Disciplinary Authority while awarding punishment vide Ex.10 and with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer then it was not necessary for it to give elaborate reasons for dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.
8. No other point was argued before me. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed summarily.