Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Ajay Rastogi
Chandrapal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 5374 of 1992
Decided On : 01/18/2006
Rule 170 - Rajasthan Civil Service Rules - 170. Recoveries of losses from the pension. - The Governor 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
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Settlement Officer, was served with three charge sheets under Rule 170 of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules for passing quasi-judicial orders in violation of relevant laws after his retirement. The charges imputed against him related to mutation or change in khatedari rights of applicants under tenancy and land revenue laws.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner did not establish grave misconduct or negligence, and the punishments imposed on him were contrary to the provisions of Rule 170 of RSR. The court quashed and set aside the impugned punishments and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner full pension as admissible under the rules.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the charges under Rule 170 of RSR, the nature of the petitioner's quasi-judicial orders, and the legality of the punishments imposed on the petitioner after his retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges of misconduct against the petitioner did not establish grave misconduct or negligence, as required under Rule 170 of RSR. The punishments imposed on the petitioner were found to be in violation of the provisions of Rule 170 and were quashed and set aside.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned punishments for stoppage of pension were quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to pay the petitioner full pension as admissible under the rules, and the petitioner was entitled to consequential benefits.
Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner who was served with three different charge sheets under Rule 170 of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules ("R.S.R.") after he retired from service and was punished with vide orders dated 30.07.1988 (Annexure1-H), revised vide order dated 02.05.1991 (Annexure1-J) and dated 27.08.1988 (Annexure 2-H so also order dated 30.07.1988 (Annexure 3-C).
2. While petitioner was posted as Assistant Settlement Officer, Tehsil Pratapgarh in year 1979-81, certain quasi judicial orders were passed by him inter alia with regard to mutation or change in khatedari rights of applicants who moved respective applications before him under tenancy and land revenue laws and crux of the charges imputed against him was that those applications were considered by the authority to be in violation of relevant laws ; therefore, after he retired from service on 31.01.1983, he was served with three different charge sheets in exercise of powers under Rule 170 of RSR.
3. In first charge sheet dated 22.08.1983 (Annexure1-A), allegation in substance against him was that on an application filed by Onkar S/o Ghasi on 25.05.1981 praying for transfer of Khata No. 6 Khasra No. 156 (3 bighas 5 biswas) in favour of his brothers Deva and Hariram Ss/o Ghasi -after recording statements of Onkar, Deva, Hariraj and Amar Singh on 29.05.1981, and later on another application was filed by Onkar S/o Ghasi that application furnished by him earlier was under some duress and his signatures were obtained fraudulently; and as such after examining material on record, earlier orders were recalled by petitioner, which was imputed to be an act of his misconduct.
4. Under second charge sheet dated 112.1983 (Annexure 2-E) allegation was that while posting in Pratapgarh in July, 1980 application was filed for mutation in the names of applicants which was denied by petitioner and later on, when fresh application was filed which was recommended by Patwari and reported to be correct by concerned Inspector/Girdwar, petitioner passed order, which was imputed to be an act of misconduct being in violation of Rule 121 of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Record) Rules. Further charge sheet was also issued with allegations inter alia that certain orders referred to therein were passed by him on 20.12.1980 were in breach of Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
5. In first charge-sheet (Supra), after he was held guilty, petitioner was initially punished vide order dated 30.07.1988 with stoppage of 10% pension for five years, which was recovered but
subsequently, notice (Annexure 1-J) for revision of quantum of punishment for stoppage of pension from 10% to 50% was issued on 07.06.1990 upon consultation with Public Service Commission, punishment of stoppage of 10% pension was found to be inappropriate, against which petitioner filed reply and after taking into consideration his explanation, earlier order of punishment dated 30.07.1988 (Annexure 1-H) was cancelled and he was punished with penalty of stoppage of 50% pension for five years vide order dated 02.05.1991 (Annexure 1-K).
6. In second charge sheet dated 112.1983 (Annexure 2-E), he was held to be guilty in passing orders in violation of land revenue Rules and vide order dated 27.07.1988 (Annexure 2-H) he was punished with penalty of stoppage of 10% pension for two years In third charge sheet imputing charge inter alia that orders were passed by petitioner in violation of Section 42 of Tenancy Act, vide order dated 30.07.1988 (Annexure 3-C), he was punished with penalty of stoppage 20% pension for five years. Hence, this writ petition.
7. Counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that orders referred to in impugned charge sheets were passed by petitioner while in discharge of his quasi judicial functions and there was no allegation levelled against him about orders passed because of extraneous considers or his act was a deliberate or actuated with malice - in the absence whereof merel
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
