SITARAM ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned punishment order dtd. 4/8/2020 by which penalty of 10% deduction in pension for two years has been imposed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 31/7/2012 after attaining the age of superannuation, but just five days before his retirement, he was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958) with the charge that at the time of his transfer less plants were counted due to which the department has sustained loss of Rs.50,460.00. Counsel submits that the alleged misconduct pertains to the year 2002 and the respondents were sleeping over the matter for a decade and just five days before this retirement, the aforesaid charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. Counsel submits that even in the year 2005, an enquiry was conducted, wherein no fault of the petitioner was found and fault of one Praveen Kumar Mathur was found and charge-sheet was served upon him under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. Counsel submits that finally no action was taken against the said Praveen Kumar Mathur and he got retired after attaining the age of superannuation and only a penalty of Rs.6,485.00 was imposed upon him. Counsel submits that charge-sheet was issued with a malafide intention to deprive the petitioner for getting the pensionary benefits and the disciplinary enquiry remain pending against the petitioner for a considerable time i.e. for eight years and finally the punishment order was passed on 4/8/2020.

(3.) Counsel submits that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner to destroy the image of the petitioner. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance upon a recent judgment passed by this court in Ramanuj Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5731/1999). Counsel submits under these circumstances, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to refund the amount of pension deducted by the respondents.