1. - By these two petitions, the petitioner has challenged the impugned punishment orders dated 29.5.2003 and Annex.25 dated 6.10.2004 passed by the respondent No.2 - Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (in S.B.CWP No.1120/2005) and Annex.17 dated 6.10.2004 (in SBCWP No.1310/2005). Both these penalty orders have been passed by the Director, Secondary Education under the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 under Rule 7 by imposing penalty of withholding of 5% of the pension amount payable to her in one case permanently and in another writ petition for a period of 1 year. The said penalty order was passed against the petitioner after holding an enquiry against the petitioner while she was working as Head- Mistress in Government School, Raj Mahal, Jodhpur under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules.

2. The case set up by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher Grade II in the Education Department of Government of Rajasthan on 17.10.1965 and after passing RPSC examinations in the year 1966, she was posted as Sr. Teacher cum Lecturer and continued on the said post. Thereafter she was promoted as Head Mistress of the Secondary School in the year 1978 and after working as Principal from the year 1990, she retired from the services in the year 1999 on 31.8.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner her service career had remained unblemished throughout and she was granted promotion also from time to time, but in the year 1995, three different charge-sheets were served upon her under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. These charge-sheets pertained to the period when the petitioner was working as Head-mistress at Govt. Girls Secondary School, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur between the period from 3rd December, 1988 to 8th November, 1989. According to the petitioner, enquiry with regard to first charge-sheet was dropped by the Disciplinary Authority himself vide order dated 27.9.2003 (Annex.1) whereas the enquiry for two charge-sheets were held against the petitioner and the petitioner was found guilty of the various charges levelled against her and the enquiry report was given to her along with letter dated 27.2.2002.

3. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned punishment orders, mainly on the following grounds:

1. The impugned penalty order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority without giving any notice for imposition of penalty in question of withholding of 5% of pension as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996.

2. The charges against the petitioner were in the nature of supervisory negligence and no pecuniary loss was caused to the State Government and therefore, the pension in part could not be withheld by the respondents.

3. There was breach of principles of natural justice in holding enquiry against the petitioner and she was not given proper opportunity of hearing during the course of enquiry and for this reason also, the enquiry report as well as impugned punishment orders deserve to be quashed.

4. As per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 which is in pari materia with Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, only the Governor has power to withhold whole or part of the pension of a Government servant and though in the present case, the RPSC and the Governor were consulted and they approved the said punishment on the petitioner, but no notice prior to the said approval or passing of impugned penalty order by the Disciplinary Authority was given to the petitioner and therefore, the said orders deserve to be quashed.

4. Mr. Bhandari mainly relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. J.N. Purohit v. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 1986(2) WLN 638. In para 10 of the said judgment, this Court held as under:

"It is not disputed that no notice was given to the petitioner under rule 170 of the RSR to show cause as to why his pension or any part of it for a