STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JAGMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reportable The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.479/2000, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner(respondent herein) was allowed while setting aside the impugned order of punishment dated 27.07.1999, forfeiting the pension of the petitioner(respondent herein).

(2.) Briefly, the facts in the matter are that vide order dated 27.07.1999, in pursuance to a charge-sheet issued, the disciplinary authority has ordered withholding of 100% pension of the petitioner Jagmal Singh in view of the Enquiry Officer's report holding all the 27 charges as proved. The petitioner Jagmal Singh was appointed as Lower Division Clerk with the respondent(appellant herein) Department on 13.06.1960. He was promoted to the post of Inspector on 27.10.1960 and subsequently to the posts of Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar on 06.01.1963 and 03.01.1976, respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted Junior Scale of Rajasthan Administrative Services on 01.07.1986 and later on, was promoted to Senior Scale of Rajasthan Administrative Services w.e.f. 16.02.1992. However, he was placed under suspension on 05.11.1992 but no charge-sheet was served upon him for almost 06 months. Accordingly, he was reinstated in service on 31.07.1993 and superannuated on the same day i.e. 31.07.1993. After his retirement, a notice was issued to him on 30.08.1993 asking him to file reply to the charge-sheet which is purported to have been sent on 30.07.1993. The petitioner(respondent herein) immediately vide his letter dated 10.09.1993, responded to the notice by stating therein that he has not received the charge-sheet. Hence, another charge-sheet was handed over to him on 13.10.1993. The petitioner duly submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer held him guilty of all the 27 charges vide his enquiry report. Thereafter, the State Government vide Notice dated 11.09.1998 asked the petitioner to submit his representation which he duly submitted on 06.10.1998. However, his representation was rejected and the respondent authorities passed an Order dated 27.07.1999 withholding the entire pension of the petitioner(respondent herein).

(3.) Mr. P.R. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants vehemently supported the order dated 27.07.1999 on the strength that in pursuance to validly issued charge-sheet the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and completed against the petitioner(respondent herein) in absolute compliance of the principles of natural justice and the enquiry has been completed in accordance with procedure established by law. Mr. P.R. Singh has also submitted that there were serious allegations of misconduct against the petitioner(respondent herein) and, therefore, on all the 27 charges, the Enquiry Officer has found the charges levelled against the petitioner (respondent herein) to be proved. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Bench is not correct and required to be interfered with. Further, the order of punishment dated 27.07.1999 passed by the disciplinary authority is just, proper and correct. Mr. P.R. Singh has further submitted that as per Sec. 170 of the Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951, the departmental proceedings can also be initiated if it is found that an officer is guilty of misconduct or negligence during the period of his service and, therefore, merely pecuniary loss caused to the State is not the only ground to proceed against a Government servant under Sec. 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. He further submits that as per Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, the State can also take recourse to proceed against the Government servant, if he is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner(respondent herein) while acting as a quasi judicial authority has failed to observe the relevant provisions/Rules while passing the orders therein and was passing the orders in violations of the instructions thereby misusing the authority vested in him, resultantly causing loss to the State. Therefore, in these circumstances the order passed by the learned Single Bench is required to be interfered with and the order of disciplinary authority dated 27.07.1999 should be upheld.