ORDER :

ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, J.

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief (s):-

“(a) That the impugned order dated 29-05-2016 (Annexure P/1) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and the amount which has been withdrawn from the pension of the petitioner in pursuance to impugned order dated 29-05-2018 may kindly be directed to be refunded to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

(b) That, the charges framed against the petitioner vide order dated 30- 03-2013 (Annexure P-6) may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.

(c) That, the respondents may kindly be further directed to pay all the retiral dues to the petitioner including full pension, gratuity, etc, in the interest of justice.

(c) That, any other writ or order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in favor of the petitioner may kindly be issued in the interest of justice.

(d) That, Costs of the petition may kindly be awarded.”

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner stood retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31/03/2013 from the post of Joint Collector, Dist. Morena. It is submitted that during the period 2001-02, petitioner was posted at Dabra, Dist. Gwalior on the post of Tahsildar and during this period some orders were issued by petitioner while officiating on the post of Tahsildar, Dabra, District Gwalior regarding issuance of Government lease (settlement) to Shri Satendra Kumar and Shri Abhay Kumar under 4.3 and clause 24 of Revenue Book Circular. The land was in small part and had been settled to nearby land owner for farming and not on the basis of adverse possession and therefore passing orders for lease, rules and regulations have been followed by the petitioner. However, prior to initiation of departmental enquiry against petitioner order of lease has been cancelled by respondent No.3 vide order dated 23-08-2011 and inquiry was suggested against petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner received notice dated 18-06-2012 regarding departmental enquiry from office of respondent No.1. Thereafter, petitioner submitted reply dated 11-07-2012 and thereafter without considering the reply, the charge-sheet was issued on 30-03-2013 i.e. one day prior to superannuation. Thereafter, petitioner filed reply dated 12-04-2013 and submitted that there was no loss to the Government as land being cultivated by the persons and, therefore, prayed for quashment of all the charges framed against him. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and during enquiry petitioner submitted applications dated 08-02-2016 and 29-02-2016 and demanded certain documents and details but respondents did not supply the documents mentioned in the representation/applications. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 30.08.2016 and petitioner submitted his reply to the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority and vide order dated 29.05.2018 the major penalty of withdrawal of 10% amount of pension for two years has been imposed upon petitioner. It is submitted that respondents have not supplied relevant documents to petitioner; no loss has been caused by petitioner to department; and the reply filed by petitioner has not been considered. It is further submitted that allegations made in the impugned order do not come under the definition of misconduct and also at the relevant point of time, petitioner was working as Tahsildar and he is entitled to the benefit of Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent/State that charge-sheet was issued to petitioner alleging certain charges and after initiating the departmental enquiry against petitioner and after conducting enquiry proceedings, after examining witnesses, enquiry officer submitted his report. It is submitted that Enquiry Report reveals that charges levelled against petitioner were found proved, therefore, as petitioner was