The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to constitutional and procedural provisions in disciplinary proceedings and upheld the petitioner's entitlement to continuous service and pensionary benefits.

Govind Mathur, J.-The petitioner entered in the services of Government of Rajasthan being appointed as Revenue Patwari w.e.f. 09.01.1961. By an order dated 010.1994 the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Collector, Rajsamand contemplating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1958").

2. A case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was lodged against the petitioner and after regular trial the petitioner was convicted for the offence referred above by a competent Court of criminal jurisdiction. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-was imposed upon the petitioner by Judgment and order dated 06.03.1986. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the Judgment dated 06.03.1986 was also dismissed by the appellate Court vide the Judgment dated 21.01.1988.

3. A challenge was given by the petitioner to the Judgment dated 21.01.1988 and also to the Judgment and order dated 06.03.1986 by way of filing a revision petition before this Court. However, as the petitioner was convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the disciplinary authority by an order dated 310.1996 while exercising powers under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958 dismissed the petitioner from services.

4. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner before this Court came to be accepted by Judgment dated 10.09.2002. This Court by Judgment dated 10.09.2002 while accepting the revision petition set aside the Judgment passed by the appellate Court as well as by the trial Court and exonerated the petitioner from all the allegations levelled against him for commission of an offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

5. The petitioner after acceptance of the revision petition by this Court submitted a representation to the disciplinary authority i.e., the Collector, Rajsamand to set aside the order dated 310.1996 as a consequence of setting aside the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence to this Court. The petitioner also made a request to reinstate him in services and then to retire him from services w.e.f. 30.04.1999, the day on which he would have acquired the age of superannuation in usual course. The petitioner also claimed back-wages and pensionary and other post retiral benefits. No response was given to the representation submitted by the petitioner, hence, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner for redressal of his grievance.

6. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has sought a direction to give back-wages from the date of dismissal and also claimed pension from the date of retirement.

7. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In reply it is contended that the representation submitted by the petitioner is under consideration and an appropriate action shall be taken by the competent authority. It is informed to the Court by the Counsel for the petitioner that no such action has been taken by the respondents so far. Counsel for the respondents also urged that no relief as prayed can be granted to the petitioner as no challenge is given by the petitioner to the order dated 310.1966 whereby he was dismissed from service in exercise of powers under Sub-rule

(1) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958.

.8. The contention of the Counsel for the respondents is that the relief claimed by the petitioner is only with regard to grant of back-wages and other retiral benefits to him which cannot be given to him without setting aside the order dated 310.1996.

.9. I have heard Counsel for the parties.

.10. It is true that no challenge is given by the petitioner to the order dated 310.1996 passed by the disciplinary authority i.e., the Collector, Rajsamand whereby the petitioner was dismissed from services by exercising powers under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958. The prayer made in the writ petition read