JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the following reliefs :­

“12(A) Quashing and setting aside the order dated 05.11.2001 imposing monthly pension cut of Rs.1000/­ for five years and to refund the amount already deducted.

(B) Directing the respondents to pay the amount of leave encashment and L.T.C., with 12% interest from 01.03.1997 till payment.

(C) Directing the respondents to fix and pay final pension and commuted pension and to pay the remaining amount of gratuity of Rs.15000/­ with 12% interest.

(D) Directing the respondents to regularize the period of suspension as per law.

(E) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondents may be directed to pay the amount of leave encashment, LTC and the remaining amount of Rs.15,000/­ to the petitioner forthwith.

(F) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, further implementation of the order dated 05.11.2001 may be stayed and the respondents may be restrained from deducting any amount from the pension of the petitioner as a result of the order dated 05.11.2001.

(G) To grant such other and further reliefs’ as may be deemed fit.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was serving as a Sales Tax Officer (Class­I). While he was serving at Junagadh, for the period commencing from 06.09.1993 to 03.02.1996, he was posted as a Sales Tax Officer (Circle­2) in Junagadh during 26.09.1992 to 04.09.1993 and during that period, he issued registration certificates in favour of one M/s. Umiya Industries Vanthali and Shreenathji Industries, Shapur. While issuing such registration to these two firms, necessary verification which was required to be undertaken has not been done, which has ultimately resulted into allowing these firms to engage only in billing activity which has caused revenue loss to the department to the extent of Rs.5,87,30,822/­ and while carrying on such registration procedure, the petitioner has shown serious dereliction in discharge of duty. As a result of this, the petitioner was served with the charge sheet on 09.02.1996 imputing certain charges which are reflecting on page 21 of the petition compilation. A detailed charge sheet was submitted indicating the particulars as to which process has not been carried out while issuance of registration to the said firms and by detailing out, the petitioner was called upon by the department. It appears that joint inquiry has been conducted of three officers and at later point of time, vide communication dated 11.09.1997, some further charges have been added, in response to the aforesaid registration issue. By that time, the petitioner was already superannuated on 28.02.1997 and came to be retired vide Notification dated 28.02.1997. In exercise of powers under Rule 189(A) and Rule 189(B) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules (“BCSR” for short), it was stated in the retirement order that the departmental inquiries which are initiated against him vide Memos dated 09.02.1996, 27.02.1997 and 27.02.1997 would continue even after the retirement. Now, this petition is concerning with the departmental inquiry which has already been issued pursuant to the Memo dated 09.02.1996, which is prior to petitioner’s retirement, in which the petitioner was dealt with. The Inquiry Officer after conducting an inquiry found that the charges have not been proved, but then having found by the disciplinary authority that such findings of inquiry officer not found satisfactory, the petitioner was served with the show cause notice, granting of opportunity vide communication dated 11.04.2000. To this show cause notice, as a part of the opportunity to the petitioner, reply came to be submitted on 02.06.2000 and thereafter, after relevant examination and stand of the petitioner, an order of penalty came to be issued on 05.11.2001, by virtue of which, an amount of Rs.1000/­ per month from the pension was ordered to be deducted for a period of five years