Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 can be invoked in all cases where the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, irrespective of whether there is a quantified pecuniary loss to the State.

JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. In this writ petition an order dated 29.9.2001 has been challenged; by that order 25% of the pension payable was withheld for five years under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereafter "the Rules of 1996").

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Tehsildar at Nohar district Ganganagar (now district Hanumangarh). In relation to his charge, a suit (No. 22/1968 Krishna Nand Giri V/s State) was pending. The plaintiff had sought declaration that the agricultural land which was a subject matter of the dispute, was khudkast. The area of the land was approximately 2375 bighas. The suit was decided by the concerned authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) on 26.2.1973. The claimant's submissions were accepted; he was granted relief. Apparently, an appeal was not preferred against that order; eventually the matter came to the notice of the District Collector, who on 7.2.1974 stayed the operation of the judgment and order dated 26.2.1973 and made a reference to the Revenue Board under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. As on the date when the present writ petition was instituted, the reference was still pending; the stay of the order of the SDO continued to operate.

3. On 6.2.1995, the departmental authorities initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Four charges were levelled against the petitioner; (1) that with a view to benefit the private party in a proceeding, the petitioner failed to discharge his duties as Parokar with due diligence; (2) he intentionally withheld relevant facts to assist the third party in the suit; (3) that the adverse order against the State was not communicated; and (4) that he never recommended to the higher authorities that appeal ought to be preferred. Apparently, the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), who decided the merits of the case, Shri D.D. Sood was also investigated, however no action was taken against him. The departmental proceedings culminated in a finding of the Enquiry Officer, who by the report dated 23.6.1998, found that the petitioner was guilty of three charges out of four. The petitioner was served with a copy of the report on 29.6.1998; he represented against the findings. In the meanwhile, he had superannuated. By order dated 29.9.2001, the disciplinary authority while accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, imposed the penalty of 25% cut of pension for five years.

4. It is argued that the enquiry report clearly shows that the petitioner had made adequate arrangements for the State's representation before the SDO. In this regard, it is pointed out that the Naib Tehsildar was designated to attend the case and that the question of the petitioner being found responsible for the adverse order, did not arise. Learned counsel highlighted that no doubt the petitioner as Tehsildar appeared before the SDO on 1.12.1972, 27.12.1972 and 29.12.1972; however, that did not detract from the fact that the Naib Tehsildar was deployed and did attend the proceedings. It was submitted that in these circumstances, to hold the petitioner, who worked as Tehsildar, as solely responsible was unfair. Learned counsel pointed to the discriminatory nature of the State's approach in this regard submitting that the concerned SDO, who actually passed the order; Shri D.D. Sood- was allowed to scot free and was even promoted to the Indian Administrative Service. The preliminary enquiry held against him did not lead any further progress and even charges were not drawn against him. On the other hand, the petitioner, who at best held an overall responsibility as Tehsildar, but was not the prime mover for the decision against the State, was inflicted with a severe penalty of forfeiture of pension. It is submitted that therefore the penalty order is arbitrary.

5. It was furthermore submitted importantly th