The cessation of disciplinary proceedings under the Rules of 1958 upon promotion to the Indian Administrative Service and retirement, and the validity of a charge sheet based on a quasi-judicial order with established malafide intent.

V.S. Kokje, J.-This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2335/92 decided on 17.1.97. The writ petitioner before the Single Bench was initially a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service. In the year 1984, he was appointed by the State of Rajasthan as Competent Authority at Jaipur under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short ‘the Act’). While functioning as the Competent Aulhorily, he passed an order on 18.87 exempting some land transferred by its owners to Jagjivan Gran Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. a registered Cooperative Housing Society, on the basis of certain government notifications. In some other cases, the writ petitioner had rejected the application for exemption of other land owners distinguishing their cases from the cases of those who were granted exemption under Section 21 of the Act. Appeals were taken from those decisions and the Government supported the view taken by the writ petitioner in his order. However, one Prithvi Singh, a stranger to the proceedings, filed a complaint before the Lokayukta and sent a copy of the compliant to the State of Rajasthan through the Special Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel, urging upon the Government to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act. The Lokayukta took cognizance of the case and ordered an enquiry and investigation into it. One Vijay Pal Choudhary intervened in the matter and made a statement. The writ petitioner was called upon to give his comments which he submitted in details before the Lokayukta. On 210.89, the Lokayukta found it to be a fit case for investigation under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Act, 1973. Ultimately, the State Government issued a charge sheet against the writ petitioner and a memorandum in this regard was served on the writ petitioner on 6.3.92. The writ petitioner challenged this action of the Government in a writ petition and obtained an interim stay. In the meantime, the writ petitioner was promoted to the Indian Administrative Service in the year 1993 and retired on superannuation on 37.96.

2. The writ petitioner challenged the action initiated against him, mainly on three grounds (i) that after his retirement, the proceedings could not continue, (ii) that on his promotion to Indian Administrative Service, the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short ‘the Rules of 1958’) under which action was initiated against him, did not apply to him and (iii) that an adjudicatory order, which was subject to appeal and revision, could not form the basis of any disciplinary proceeding against him.

3. The learned Single Judge upheld these contentions and held that the disciplinary proceedings were carried on maliciously against the writ petitioner for colat-efal purposes.

4. TheState of Rajasthan has filed this special appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge contending that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was erroneous, it was contended that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the disciplinary proceedings could not continue, after the retirement, was erroneous and that contradictory views have been taken by the learned Single Judge on the point as to whether the departmental proceedings initiated under the Rules of 1958 could continue afler the promotion of the writ petitioner to the Indian Administrative Service, ft was further contended that the decision on the point as to whether the disciplinary proceedings could be initiated on the basis of a quasi judicial order or nol, is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it was further contended that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the charge sheet was washed away because of the writ petilioner’s promotion to the Indian Administrative Service was also erroneous as the promotion was granted under an interim order of the Court passed in t