- (1.) Vide this order, abovementioned two writ petitions would be disposed of.
(2.) Petitioner joined Rajasthan Judicial Service on 29.07.1980 in pursuance to the order dated 16.01.1980. Petitioner was promoted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 1993 and was further promoted to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Cadre in the year 2000. On 23.04.2013, an F.I.R. was registered against two advocates, one court clerk and one clerk of an advocate. On 23.06.2013, charge sheet was filed against three persons in the trial court and investigation qua the petitioner was kept pending. Petitioner was arrested on 27.05.2014 and was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was released on bail on 16.05.2015. Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.06.2013. Petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2015 after attaining the age of 60 years. On the said date, petitioner was in judicial custody. Petitioner was granted provisional pension. Petitioner by way of a representation claimed that he was also entitled for gratuity and benefit of leave encashment. However, his representation was rejected. Petitioner was served with charge sheet vide memorandum dated 06.01.2017. Hence, the abovementioned writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the enquiry proceedings initiated against him after his retirement and withholding of benefit of gratuity and leave encashment.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no enquiry/disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner as on the day when charge sheet was issued against the petitioner, he was no longer a Government servant as he had already superannuated on 31.01.2015. No sanction from the Governor had been taken before initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. Charge sheet could have been issued by the competent authority, but in the present case, the same had been issued by enquiry officer. As per Rule 16(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'), charge sheet could be issued only by the disciplinary authority. Enquiry initiated against the petitioner was a futile exercise as the petitioner could not be imposed any punishment provided under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958. Petitioner was already facing criminal trial with regard to allegations relating to corruption. Thus, petitioner could be said to have committed an offence, but the said 'offence' could not be described as 'misconduct'.;