Hari Ram vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

Kanta Bhatnagar, J.—In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Hari Ram has assailed the Order Annexure 1 5, dated November 9,1981 by which after his retirement, enquiry was ordered to be initiated under R.170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short the R.S.R,'' hereinafter) and Chairman Board of Revenue, Ajmer was appointed as Disciplinary Authority. He has also challenged the chargesheet Annexure-3, statement of allegations Annexure-4 and the Notice Annexure-2 on the ground that there being no allegations against him for causing any pencuniary loss to the Government on account of any act or omission on his part, all these proceedings initiated after his retirement are invalid and the orders referred to above deserve to be quashed.

The petitioner being in the cadre of Rajasthan Tehsildar Service was working as Assistant Settlement Officer when he was retired on January 30,1981. After a few months, it was proposed to take the proceedings against him because of certain irregularities in certain decisions taken by him. As such, vide Order Annexure-15 decision was taken to initiate enquiry against him u/s 170(b)(i) and under Clause [iii] of the R.S.R., Chairman Board of Revenue was appointed as Disciplinary Authority. As stated earlier, the Disciplinary Authority chargesheeted him for the various irregularities and the chargesheet was served with him along with Annexure-4, the statement of allegations.

The pertinent point in the case would be whether the petitioner having been retired, provisions of R.1 70 of the R.S.R. is applicable in his case.

Rule 1 70 of the R.S.R. provides for recoveries of loss from the pension. It reads as under:

Recoveries of losses from the pension.-

The Governor further reserves to himself the right of witholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:

(a) provided that such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service ;

(b) Such department proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment,-

(i) Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor;

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service;

(c) no such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and

(d) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed.

The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having substance is that the enquiry under R.16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 is to be conducted against the delinquent officer and the punishments that can be imposed are provided under R.1 4 of these Rules but after retirement none of those punishment is impossible and therefore, if the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of R.170 of the R.S.R., no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against him.

The learned Additional Government Advocate controverting these submissions stated that it would be only known after the enquiry proceedings are completed; that as to whether the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of R.1 70 of the R.S.R. or not and therefore, the petition is pre-mature.

The important point for consideration is as to what are the charges against the petitioner and whether from the charges and the statement of allegations, it is borne out that any pecuniary loss has been caused to the State on account of any act or omission on the part of the petitioner. All the allegations mentioned in Annexure-4, the statement of allegations refer to the irregularities and carelessness of the petitioner in some decisions. The substance of the statement of allegations at its bottom is as under:

iRrr% mijksDr felyks ds QSlys vkius fu;eks ds fo:) euekus ax ls fcuk nksuks ikfVZ;ks ds vfu;fer :i ls fn;s gS A

This clearly indicates that the allegation is for irregularities committed in certain decisions and that irregularity mainly was not giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The whole statement being carefully read, does not indicate any pecuniary loss to the State on that account. Mr. Singhvi, learned Additional Government Advocate also farily conceeds that from the statement of allegations, nothing is spelt out to the effect that any pecuniary loss was caused to the State Government. This being the position, even if the enquiry is allowed to continue, the Disciplinary Authority cannot go beyond the allegations mentioned in the statement of allegations. In other words, even if all these allegations are proved, still that would not bring the case of the petitioner within the purview of R.1 70 of the R.S.R.

The question of applicability of the provisions of R.170 R.S.R. came for consideration before this Court in the case of Gyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1991 (3) WLR 530 and it was held, that these provisions cannot be attracted when no pecuniary loss is caused to the Government by the petitioner.

This decision was referred with approval in the case of Khaju Khan v. State D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 382/81 Decided on 24.1.92 and it was observed that it is one thing that the misconduct may be grave but it is quite another when it comes to the withholding of the pension of a particular person and in this respect R.170 of the R.S.R. provides that it cannot be withheld unless the misconduct results in pecuniary loss to the Government.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case even if the enquiry initiated after the retirement of the petitioner by virtue of Rule 170 of the R.S.R. is conducted, no action can be taken against him under these provisions because the alleged misconduct or irregularity committed in deciding cases without giving opportunities to the parties concerned, cannot be said to result in causing any pecuniary loss to the Government. In this view of the matter, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure-15 dated November 9, 1981, Annexure-2 dated November 12, 1981 and Annexures-3 and 4 enclosed therewith are quashed.