1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order of the disciplinary authority contained in Annexures-14 and 15 dated 23.1.2003 and 4.2.2003. By order dated 23.1.2003, 25% of the petitioners pension has been deducted by way of punishment in a disciplinary proceeding. By order dated 4.2.2003, the disciplinary authority has directed that that the petitioner would only be entitled to subsistence allowance during the period he was placed under suspension.

2. As far back as on 31.3.1998 a disciplinary proceeding was initiated by serving charge-sheet on the petitioner in which it has been alleged (a) That the petitioner is careless and is not performing his duties in a proper manner, (b) He did not make attempts to get the registration fee deposited in the treasury and, (c) That he had prepared challans on 24.4.1997 with respect to Rs. 5,70,792.92- 1,27,248.42. As a result Rs. 1,27,248.42 was left lying on the iron safe of the treasury alongwith the amount which was collected on 28.4.1997.

3. In the night of 29.4.1997 a dacoity took place. The iron chest was broken and a sum of Rs. 1,93,831.54 was stolen away from the registration office for which a criminal case and departmental proceeding was initiated. This proceeding remained pending. The petitioner retired on 31.12.1999. Thereafter, as there was a delay in payment of his pension dues, he filed CWJC No. 12146 of 2002 which was disposed of on 28.1.2003. It was during the pendency of the aforesaid writ application that an order was passed on 23.1.2003 deducting 25% of the pension of the petitioner in the said departmental proceeding. The Court gave liberty to the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the order of punishment by filing appropriate writ application.

4. In this case, there is procedural as well as factual defects in the manner in which the proceeding has been conducted. The petitioner was issued a show- cause. He asked for certain documents which were not supplied to him. The enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer vide Annexure-8 came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not be held responsible for not depositing the amount lying in the safe in the treasury. The enquiry officer also came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not on duty on the night on which the alleged theft took place and as such he cannot be held responsible for dereliction of duty on that count.

5. The disciplinary authority differed from the findings of the enquiry officer and supposedly issued a second show- cause notice contained on 12.12.2002 (Annexure-10). The reason for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer was that, the petitioner had not followed the provisions of Rule 2 of the registration manual while performing his duties. The petitioner filed a second show-cause beyond 15 days time that was allocated to him vide Annexure- 11. Without considering the said show-cause or giving any reasons whatsoever for reaching the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him except to say that Rule 241 was not followed, the petitioner has been awarded punishment as described above.

6. In this background the most glaring procedural defect in the entire proceedings, which would be apparent from the following dates is that the charge sheet was issued on 31.3.1998. The enquiry was concluded on 1.9.1998. The authorities thereafter sat over the matter, did not take any steps, nor did they pass any order extending the life of departmental proceeding, but suddenly after five years issued a second show-cause notice on 12.12.2002. The reason is not difficult to decipher. It would be apparent that after the petitioner had filed the writ application 12146 of 2002 for payment of his retiral dues, the department suddenly woke to the fact that they had to pay the dues and thereafter passed an order issuing a second show-cause notice and punishing the petitioner. It smacks of mala fide.

7. The Court will now examine the reason put forward by the Discipl