VIRDHI CHAND YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant- plaintiff (hereafter 'the plaintiff') has preferred this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 28/1/2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in first appeal No.375/2014 dismissing appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 24/11/2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur city, Jaipur in civil suit No.362/2004 whereby and whereunder suit has been dismissed and upheld the order dtd. 11/3/2002 passed under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereafter 'Pension Rules') whereby 25% pension of the plaintiff was withheld permanently.

(2.) Facts as culled out from the record are that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the plaintiff vide order dated 21- 11-1999 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereafter 'the CCA Rules'). Charge sheet was issued that while the delinquent was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Colonization, Chhatargarh. He flouting orders of superior officers allotted agricultural land to agriculturists in lieu of their acquired agricultural land, while the Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner vide letter dtd. 10/3/1987 ordered that land of 11 agriculturists in village Surasar Tehsil and District Bikaner was acquired by forest department with the help of local police for the purpose of plantation and charagah. In lieu of acquired land a list of such agriculturists was to be prepared and only the report was to be sent by the delinquent. But the delinquent instead of sending the report, on 2/4/1987 allotted land to agriculturists and further directed Tehsildar Colonization Poogal to send compliance report. It was alleged that according to order dtd. 29/8/1983 issued by the Government of Rajasthan Finance (Colonization) department the delinquent was not competent to allot the land. It was alleged that he intentionally allot land to agriculturists to give them undue benefits.

(3.) Defendants filed written statement and stated that on the basis of available record charge sheet was issued. The delinquent being government servant caused financial loss to government, therefore, the department was entitled to initiate the enquiry proceedings. The delinquent has wrongly allotted land to agriculturists in lieu of their land acquired by forest department for the purpose of plantation and charagah. The delinquent was required only to send report of agriculturists, instead he allotted land to them. The delinquent admitted the letter dtd. 10/3/1987, but he acted contrary to the said letter. On proving charges against the delinquent, after providing adequate opportunities to the delinquent charges were found proved and the punishment was imposed. It was prayed that suit be dismissed.