1. Petitioner challenged penalty of permanent withholding of 100% pension imposed for an alleged erroneous quasi-judicial decree under Section 88, Rajasthan Tenancy Act. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 1061
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MUKESH RAJPUROHIT, J.
Fateh Rai Soni S/o Sh. Ishwar Chand Soni – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Personnel – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11692 of 2025
Decided On : 05-08-2026
Important Points
Disciplinary proceedings against an officer for a legal error in a quasi-judicial order are unsustainable unless there is proof of mala fides, corruption, or recklessness. Such an error does not constitute misconduct, and permanent withholding of pension on this basis is arbitrary and disproportionate.
Subject
Service Law - Pension and Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES: R.16
RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT: S.88
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16, Art.21, Art.226, Art.311
RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES PENSION RULES: R.7
RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT: S.88
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16, Art.21, Art.226, Art.311
RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES PENSION RULES: R.7
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 16; Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 - Rule 7; Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Sections 16(1) and 88; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 - Disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired officer for passing a quasi-judicial order - Erroneous exercise of jurisdiction in a quasi-judicial capacity without any allegation of corruption, mala fides, dishonesty, or personal gain does not constitute misconduct - Mere difference in legal opinion or a wrong legal conclusion cannot be the basis for disciplinary action (Paras 12, 13, 15)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Non-supply of essential documents, failure to examine material witnesses, and non-recording of the delinquent's statement during departmental enquiry constitutes a violation of natural justice and vitiates the findings (Para 18)
(C) Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings - Inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating proceedings and imposing penalty, especially when charge-sheets are served on the date of retirement, causes prejudice to the employee and undermines the sustainability of the proceedings (Para 19)
(D) Pension - Nature and Proportionality - Pension is a valuable statutory right and not a bounty - Permanent withholding of 100% pension for a perceived legal error in the absence of grave misconduct, such as corruption or moral turpitude, is manifestly arbitrary and shockingly disproportionate (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
A retired officer from the administrative service was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and served a charge-sheet on the date of retirement for a quasi-judicial order passed fifteen years earlier. The allegation was that the officer wrongly granted khatedari rights over pasture land, violating statutory prohibitions. No allegations of corruption, personal gain, or mala fides were made. After an enquiry, the authority imposed the penalty of permanent withholding of 100% pension.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order in question was a reasoned quasi-judicial decision that had attained finality as no appeal or revision was preferred. The disciplinary proceedings were an impermissible collateral scrutiny of a judicial function. Furthermore, the enquiry was flawed due to procedural irregularities and extreme delay.
Issues: Whether a reasoned quasi-judicial order, devoid of mala fide intent or corruption, can be termed as "misconduct" to justify the permanent withholding of pension.
Ratio Decidendi: An officer exercising quasi-judicial powers cannot be subjected to disciplinary action merely because a different legal opinion is formed later. Unless there is evidence of recklessness, corrupt motive, or dishonesty, a legal error does not constitute misconduct. The permanent withholding of pension without proof of grave misconduct is manifestly arbitrary.
Result: Impugned order dated 30.04.2025 quashed and set aside; writ petition allowed.
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Non-supply of essential documents, failure to examine material witnesses, and non-recording of the delinquent's statement during departmental enquiry constitutes a violation of natural justice and vitiates the findings (Para 18)
(C) Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings - Inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating proceedings and imposing penalty, especially when charge-sheets are served on the date of retirement, causes prejudice to the employee and undermines the sustainability of the proceedings (Para 19)
(D) Pension - Nature and Proportionality - Pension is a valuable statutory right and not a bounty - Permanent withholding of 100% pension for a perceived legal error in the absence of grave misconduct, such as corruption or moral turpitude, is manifestly arbitrary and shockingly disproportionate (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
A retired officer from the administrative service was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and served a charge-sheet on the date of retirement for a quasi-judicial order passed fifteen years earlier. The allegation was that the officer wrongly granted khatedari rights over pasture land, violating statutory prohibitions. No allegations of corruption, personal gain, or mala fides were made. After an enquiry, the authority imposed the penalty of permanent withholding of 100% pension.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order in question was a reasoned quasi-judicial decision that had attained finality as no appeal or revision was preferred. The disciplinary proceedings were an impermissible collateral scrutiny of a judicial function. Furthermore, the enquiry was flawed due to procedural irregularities and extreme delay.
Issues: Whether a reasoned quasi-judicial order, devoid of mala fide intent or corruption, can be termed as "misconduct" to justify the permanent withholding of pension.
Ratio Decidendi: An officer exercising quasi-judicial powers cannot be subjected to disciplinary action merely because a different legal opinion is formed later. Unless there is evidence of recklessness, corrupt motive, or dishonesty, a legal error does not constitute misconduct. The permanent withholding of pension without proof of grave misconduct is manifestly arbitrary.
Result: Impugned order dated 30.04.2025 quashed and set aside; writ petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
-
constitutional law
-
judicial review
- disciplinary proceedings (Para 15)
-
fundamental rights
- right to life
-
judicial review
- service law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Narpat Singh Charan (Arha) with Mr. Om Singh Chauhan
For the Respondent: Mr. Nitesh Mathur, AGC with Mr. Ravi Shanker
For the Petitioner: Mr. Narpat Singh Charan (Arha) with Mr. Om Singh Chauhan
For the Respondent: Mr. Nitesh Mathur, AGC with Mr. Ravi Shanker
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued penalty for a quasi-judicial act without mala fides is illegal; respondents argued it was for grave negligence and within statutory framework. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Disciplinary proceedings founded solely on erroneous quasi-judicial order, without mala fides, corruption, or dishonesty, are impermissible in service jurisprudence. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 )
4. An officer exercising quasi-judicial powers cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings merely for an erroneous decision unless mala fides, corruption, or dishonest motive is present. (Para 13 , 15 )
5. Writ petition allowed; impugned order of permanent withholding of 100% pension quashed; pension and arrears to be restored within two months. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
6. Can disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a quasi-judicial officer for an erroneous order without allegations of mala fides?
No, disciplinary proceedings cannot be sustained solely on an erroneous quasi-judicial order without any allegation of mala fides, corruption, dishonesty, or reckless conduct. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 )
7. What constitutes 'grave misconduct' under pension rules for withholding pension?
An erroneous quasi-judicial decision, without mala fides, does not constitute 'grave misconduct' under Rule 7 of the Pension Rules, and cannot justify permanent pension withholding. (Para 20 , 22 )
8. Does delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings vitiate them?
An inordinate and unexplained delay of fifteen years in initiating disciplinary proceedings, causing prejudice, undermines the sustainability of the proceedings. (Para 19 )
9. Is a reasoned order required from the disciplinary authority?
Yes, the disciplinary authority must independently consider the representation and pass a reasoned order; failure to do so amounts to non-application of mind. (Para 17 )
10. What procedural deficiencies can vitiate a departmental enquiry?
Failure to supply documents, examine material witnesses, and record the delinquent's statement violates principles of natural justice and vitiates the enquiry. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT :
MUKESH RAJPUROHIT, J.
1. The matter comes up on an application (01/26) filed by the respondents for vacation of interim stay granted by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2025.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken for final hearing today itself.
3. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.04.2025 (Annx.16) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the penalty of permanent withholding of 100% pension has been imposed upon him.
4. The facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed to the Junior Scale under the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) in the year 1984. He was promoted to the Senior Scale in 1993 and thereafter to the Selection Scale in 2000. Upon attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30.08.2017 while serving as Settlement Officer, Bikaner.
4.1 On the very date of his retirement, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘Rules of 1958’ hereinafter). The allegation against him was that, while posted as Deputy Director, I.C.D.S., Churu and functioning as Officer-in-Charge during the Prashasan Gaon Ke Sang Abhiyan in the year 2001, he had wrongly decreed a suit under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘Act of 1955’ hereinafter) in favour of one Bishna Ram vide judgment dated 10.01.2002. The charge was confined to an alleged erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Significantly, there was no allegation whatsoever of corruption, mala fides, dishonesty, illegal gratification, personal gain or any other misconduct.
4.2 According to the petitioner, the impugned decree was passed in discharge of his quasi-judicial functions pursuant to the powers conferred upon him by the Government Notifications dated 23.10.2001 and 20.12.2001. The decree was rendered after considering the pleadings, the relevant revenue records and the written statement submitted by the concerned Tehsildar, who had admitted the plaintiff's possession and raised no objection to the relief sought. Admittedly, neither an appeal nor a revision was preferred against the said decree under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
4.3 It is further pleaded that despite repeated representations made between the years 2017 and 2022, including applications submitted under the Right to Information Act, the respondents failed to supply essential documents required for preparing his defence, thereby compelling him to submit his reply without access to the complete record.
4.4 During the departmental enquiry, only one out of the four listed prosecution witnesses, namely, Shri Omprakash Verma was examined. The then Tehsildar, namely, Shri J.P. Tak, whose written statement formed the basis of the decree and who was the principal witness, was neither summoned nor examined despite the petitioner's specific request. The petitioner's own statement was also not recorded. Nevertheless, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 31.05.2024 (Annx.12) holding the charge proved. Although, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 05.08.2024 (Annx.14) challenging the findings recorded therein, the same was not duly considered.
4.5 Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 (Annx.16), communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 08.05.2025 (Annx.15) on 17.05.2025, the disciplinary authority imposed the extreme penalty of permanent withholding of the petitioner's entire pension. The petitioner contends that the punishment has been imposed nearly eight years after his retirement and more than twenty-three years after the alleged incident. It is asserted that the impugned order is arbitrary, grossly disproportionate, violative of the principles of natural justice and wholly unsustainable in law, particularly when the alleged act was nothing but a quasi-judicial decision rendered under statutory authority without any allegation
