Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and unjustified nature of the action by the respondents can lead to the quashing of the punishment order and the direction to refund the deducted pension with interest.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of filing of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned punishment order dated 04.08.2020 by which penalty of 10% deduction in pension for two years has been imposed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 31.07.2012 after attaining the age of superannuation, but just five days before his retirement, he was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the Rules of 1958) with the charge that at the time of his transfer less plants were counted due to which the department has sustained loss of Rs.50,460/-. Counsel submits that the alleged misconduct pertains to the year 2002 and the respondents were sleeping over the matter for a decade and just five days before this retirement, the aforesaid charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. Counsel submits that even in the year 2005, an enquiry was conducted, wherein no fault of the petitioner was found and fault of one Praveen Kumar Mathur was found and charge-sheet was served upon him under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. Counsel submits that finally no action was taken against the said Praveen Kumar Mathur and he got retired after attaining the age of superannuation and only a penalty of Rs.6,485 was imposed upon him. Counsel submits that charge-sheet was issued with a malafide intention to deprive the petitioner for getting the pensionary benefits and the disciplinary enquiry remain pending against the petitioner for a considerable time i.e. for eight years and finally the punishment order was passed on 04.08.2020. Counsel submits that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner to destroy the image of the petitioner.

3. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance upon a recent judgment passed by this court in Ramanuj Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5731/1999). Counsel submits under these circumstances, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to refund the amount of pension deducted by the respondents.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the misconduct was committed by the petitioner due to which the department sustained loss of Rs.50,460/-and departmental action was taken against the petitioner immediately after getting information of the said misconduct of the petitioner and charge-sheet was issued to him under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. Counsel submits that after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after appreciating the evidence available on record finally, the impugned punishment order was passed against the petitioner. Counsel submits that finding of the fact has been recorded at the time of passing of the punishment order and this Court should not re-appreciate the finding of the fact while exercising its powers for judicial review contained under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel submits that the punishment is just and proper looking to the misconduct of the petitioner, hence interference of this Court is not warranted.

5. Heard rival submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record.

6. Admittedly, the date of retirement of the petitioner was 31.07.2012 and this fact was well within the knowledge of the respondents. Even in the year 2002 when the alleged incident occurred for which an enquiry was conducted by them in the year 2005, wherein no fault of the petitioner was found and it was found that one Praveen Kumar Mathur was responsible for which he was served charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 but finally, no punishment order was passed against him. At the verge of the retirement of the petitioner just five days before the retirement, impugned charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules, 1958 was served upon him