The punishment of compulsory retirement was not justified in light of the petitioner's acquittal in a criminal trial for the same set of facts.

1. The present old writ petition of 1998 filed by Laxmi Lal Maheshwari, who has expired during the long waiting period in the dockets of the Court on 8/4/2013, without being able to see the success of his case.

2. This petition was filed against his compulsory retirement order dated 9/5/1984, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority also on 1.7.1997 and aggrieved of both these orders, he had filed the present writ petition, spread into 110 pages with documents annexed with writ petition, the bulky record swelled to 345 pages, to which a reply was filed by the respondent Department also and after lengthy arguments of learned counsels, a brief written submission has also been submitted in the Court on the conclusion of arguments & thus, it is being disposed of by this Court by this order.

3. Brief facts considered apposite are that the petitioner having being appointed as LDC in the office of Commander, N.C.C. Group Headquarters, Udaipur on 5/1/1963 was promoted to the post of UDC on 10/5/1978. The incident for which the petitioner faced criminal trial as also the disciplinary proceedings pertains to the Month of February, 1978, when working as UDC and holding the additional charge of Cashier in the office of respondents, the FVC (Fully Vouched Contingent) Bill No. 73 for the sum of Rs.505.85 for making petty payments of the respondent department, like water and electricity bills etc., was drawn by the petitioner and on account of alleged forgery, the said bill was drawn from the State Treasury for the sum of Rs.9505.85, adding the figure 9 on the left side of the said bill at four places and for this alleged fraud and forgery, the petitioner faced the criminal trial in criminal case no. 42/89 – State vs. Laxmi Lal, in which the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Udaipur trying the petitioner under Section 420 and 468 IPC fully exonerated the petitioner vide order dated 17/4/1996. A copy of the said order is placed on record as Annex.36. The details of said order will be discussed slightly later. But, despite the aforesaid criminal trial, the respondent NCC Directorate of Rajasthan at Jaipur independently also initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner vide Charge Sheet dated 21/5/1979.

4. In the said inquiry, the petitioner appears to have not participated on account of facing criminal trial on the same set of facts & material against him and, therefore, an ex-parte inquiry report was given against him and on the basis of same he was ordered to be compulsorily retired vide order dated 9/5/1984. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order also could not bring any fruitful result, even though by that time his acquittal order dated 17/4/1996 had come, but the appeal also came to be dismissed by the concerned Special Secretary of the Education Department of Govt. of Rajasthan on 1/7/1997. Copies of these two impugned orders are placed on record as Annex.17 and 43. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner in this Court on 10/2/1998 and same was admitted after hearing both the parties on 11/11/2005 after show cause notices were issued on 21/4/1998 and hearing was directed to be expedited but the hearing of the said case was deferred for one reason or the other and in the meanwhile the petitioner died on 8/4/2013 and, thereafter, his legal representatives were taken on record on 4/9/2013 & the matter was heard at length by this Court on 18/2/2014.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Bhandari urged that the charges framed against the petitioner were on the basis of case set up against him in the criminal trial and though the charge sheet does not talk of any embezzlement by the petitioner or even facilitating withdrawal of excess amount of Rs.9000/-in FVC Bill No.73 from the Treasury, the petitioner, who had rendered unblemished service of 20 years was abruptly & compulsorily retired from the said service even though later on, the competent criminal court acqu