BIRDHI CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, while working as Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation), Chatargarh, was issued a chargesheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 alongwith a co-delinquent employee vide memorandum dated 5. 4. 1991. The petitioner also retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31. 12. 1991. Since no reply to the chargesheet was filed by the petitioner, an inquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 7. 7. 1994. A joint inquiry was to be held against the petitioner as well as the other co-delinquent employee. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 14. 8. 1996. A copy of the inquiry report was also supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 30. 8. 1996.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide order dated 26. 8. 1997 proposing a penalty of stoppage of 20% pension for five years. After considering the representation made by the petitioner and with consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, a penalty of stoppage of 10% pension for five years was imposed on the petitioner side order dated 13. 5. 1999. Review Petition, filed by the petitioner against the above penalty, was also dismissed by the competent authority vide order dated 19. 10. 2001. Hence the present writ petition challenging the order of punishment dated 13. 5. 1999 as also the order dated 19. 10. 2001, passed by the reviewing authority.

(3.) SO far as objection in regard to pecuniary loss is concerned, the provisions of Rule 170 has to be read as a whole, Rule 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules is quoted here as under : " Rule 170. Recoveries of losses from the pension-The Government further reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement :- (a) provided that such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service. "