Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the wife of late Shri Mukhtar Ahmad, who was working as Patwari in the Revenue Department, challenging the order dated 22.06.2006 imposing penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increment with cumulative effect and order dated 03.02.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer whereby the appeal filed by husband of the petitioner was dismissed. The husband of the petitioner died on 22.09.2014. The review petition filed by husband of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Governor vide order dated 11.12.2014. The petitioner after death of her husband filed a further review petition before the Governor and requested that the penalty order imposed against her husband may be quashed and set aside and same is said to be still pending.

2. The brief facts of the case are that husband of the petitioner was issued memorandum along with charge-sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 on 13.12.2005 wherein two charges were levelled against him.

Charge No. 1:-

3. The allegation was in respect of opening mutation No. 2265 dated 11.03.2003 and mutation No. 2258 dated 24.12.2002 in favour of Khatedar Pappu S/o Badri Yadav and Mohan S/o Mangya Yadav, residents of Mandawar. The said persons on the basis of mutation got the loan sanctioned and details which were furnished by the husband of the petitioner was absolutely based on wrong facts and it was found that due to false report prepared by husband of the petitioner, ignoring mandatory procedure, he had committed serious misconduct.

Charge No. 2:-

4. The allegation was in respect of giving a wrong report while preparing Jamabandi by certifying that the land in question bearing Khasra No. 56 and 57 were free from all encumbrances from Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. Tonk. The Khatedar on the basis of such note showing their land to be free from encumbrances, got loan from Arawali Kshetriya Bank, Sohela and as such the husband of the petitioner while giving such report, committed serious misconduct.

5. The husband of the petitioner after receipt of the charge-sheet submitted his reply and stated that he was heart-patient since 2000 and the entries which were mentioned by him while opening the mutation, had been inadvertently made. The husband of the petitioner further stated that by such entries, there was no loss caused to the Government and requested to drop the proceedings initiated against him. Although the petitioner has not submitted the contents of reply in the writ petition, however, the Disciplinary Authority has also produced the contents of the reply filed by husband of the petitioner which, finds place in the impugned penalty order as under:-

^^vkjksih iVokjh us vius tokc esa ;g Hkh vafdr fd;k gS fd og o"kZ 2000 ls gkVZ&is'kaV gS rFkk CyMÁs'kj dk LFkk;h ejht gSa tgk¡ rd esjh tkudkjh esa gS vkjksih lEcfU/kr vof/k esa ÁkFkhZ dh rfc;r lgh ugha Fkh rFkk lgou ls ukekUrjdj.k uEcj xyr fy[kus esa vk x;s] ijUrq vc tks ukekUrjdj.k Hkjs x;s gSa og lgh gSa blesa jkT; ljdkj dk dksbZ uqdlku ugha gqvk gSaA vr% lgkuqHkwfriwoZd fopkj djrs gq;s ÁkFkhZ ds fo:} dh x;h dk;Zokgh blh Lrj ij Mªki Qjekus ds vkns'k Ánku djsaA**

6. The District Collector after receipt of reply of husband of the petitioner, considered the entire record including reply, documents etc. and he found that husband of the petitioner had admitted the charges levelled against him and as such, imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increment with cumulative effect by order dated 22.06.2006. The District Collector further observed that if the delinquent employee was a heart patient and suffering from high blood pressure, he could apply for compulsory retirement by submitting appropriate application.

7. The husband of the petitioner after passing the penalty order, preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer and narrated the same facts before the Appellate Authority regarding his illness and he had taken a plea that he was taking the medicines and he wa