ORDER :

1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by challenging the punishment order dated 03.06.1999 issued by the respondent by which a penalty of 5% deduction in pension for two years was imposed.

Submissions by the petitioner:

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the due date of retirement of the petitioner was 30.06.1991 but a day prior to his retirement, charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘Rules of 1958’) was served upon the petitioner for an incident pertaining to year 1977. Counsel submits that after a delay of 14 years, charge sheet was served with a malafide intention to take action against the petitioner. Counsel submits that though the petitioner forwarded the matter to the competent authority to take action against the jail guards against whom the judgment of conviction and probation was passed but the competent authority did not take any action against those persons. Counsel further submits that even after serving charge sheet to the petitioner, no action was taken against those accused persons to whom benefit of probation was granted by the competent authority of law. Counsel submits that to spoil the past unblemished service career of the petitioner, the unwarranted exercise was done and finally he was punished with the penalty of stoppage of 5% pension for two years. Counsel submits that charge sheet could not have been issued to a delinquent at the fag end of his career i.e. just a day before his retirement.

In support of his contention, counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

1. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 738;

2. M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88;

3. P.V. Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636;

4. State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakrishnan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154; and

5. Shushma Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 10368.

Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

Submissions by the respondent:

3. Per contra, counsel for the State-respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was working on the post of Inspector General (Prison) and he was well aware of the fact that two jail guards were found guilty and benefit of probation was extended to them by the competent Court of law but in spite of knowing these facts, the petitioner did not take any action against those persons and did not forward their matter to the competent authority for initiation of departmental inquiry under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, 1958. Counsel submits that the petitioner deliberately acted in a malafide way to protect the above two persons, hence, the Department has not caused any illegality in serving charge sheet to the petitioner under the Rules of 1958. Counsel submits that a thorough inquiry was conducted and after the inquiry, impugned punishment order was passed against the petitioner. Counsel submits that finding of fact has been recorded by the competent authority, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

Analysis and Reasoning:

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. Admittedly after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.1991, the petitioner stood retire from the post of Inspector General (Prisons). The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 by issuance of memorandum of charges dated 29.06.1991 (hereinafter referred as ‘the charge sheet’) which was served upon him i.e. immediately preceding his retirement for the incident pertaining to the year 1977. The following three charges were levelled against him:

(I) That the petitioner did not take any action under Rule 19 (1) of the Rules of 1958 against the jail guards namely Moha