JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order (Annexure 5) of the Deputy Secretary, Revenue (Gr. 1) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur dated January 28, 1981 by which l/5th of the pension payable to the petitioner has been withheld under Rule 170, Rajasthan Service Rules. The facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) IN the year 1974, the petitioner was Tehsildar-cum-Sub-Registrar, Revdar (Sirohi ). 55 bighas 7 biswas of agricultural land situated in village Harni Amrapura Tehsil Revdar (Sirohi) was sold by the Khatedars Devisingh, Bhanwar Singh and Lal Chand for Rs. 20,000/- to Pabudan Singh, Prabhu Singh and Bhagwan Singh, sons of the petitioner, and three sale-deeds were presented before him for registration and they were duly registered. Mutation of the said agricultural land was duly effected in their favour. On October 10, 1975, charge-sheet under Rule 16, Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was served upon him. The Collector, Sirohi was appointed as enquirying officer. After taking his reply, examining the nine witnesses of the department and hearing the Presenting Officer and the petitioner, the Collector, Sirohi gave his report on April 30, 1978 holding that all charges except one are proved. Meanwhile, the petitioner retired on February 28, 1978. Thereafter, show cause notice Annexure 1 was issued on October 31, 1979 by the Deputy Secretary Revenue (Gr. 1) Department, Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner filed his reply on February 18, 1980. After hearing him, the impugned order (Annexure 5) was passed withholding his l/5th pension. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Rule 170, Rajasthan Service Rules were not attracted in this case; impugned order could not be passed as no pecuniary loss was caused to the Government by the petitioner, no mis-conduct was committed by the petitioner in purchasing the aforesaid land in the name of his sons and in getting mutation in their names. He also contended that the enquirying officer has stated in his report that the petitioner deliberately refused to register a mortgage-deed and he has raised inference of misconduct against the petitioner despite the fact that no charge was framed on this count. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Government Advocate that the Rule 108, Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1935 clearly prohibited the petitioner to register the said sale-deeds which were in favour of his sons as he was personally interested in them and thus committed mis-conduct. Rule 170, Rajasthan Service Rules, runs as under: - "170. 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 the Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave mis-conduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. (a) provided that such departmental proceedings, 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 departmental proceedings, 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 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. " There is no indication either in the show cause notice Annexure 1 or in the Report (Annexure 2) of the Enquirying Officer that the Government was put to any pecuniary loss on account of any mis-conduct of the petitioner. This is further clear from the various charges framed against the petitioner. The charge No. 1 is that the petitioner purchased the said land for Rs. 20,000/-in the name of his sons from the said vendor while he was Tehsildar, Revdar. The charge No. 2 is that he himself registered the said sale-deeds. The charge No. 3 is that he illegally got mutation effected in respect of the said land in the name of his sons. The Charge No. 4 is that the vendors treated the petitioner as the purchaser and not his sons. The Charge No. 5 is that he purchased the said land at the rate below that prevailing market rate misusing his official position. Charge No. 6 is that he forcibly purchased the said land after influencing the vendors by his official position. The charge No. 7 is that the vendor disclosed in his statement that he was forced to execute the sale-deed in favour of the sons of the petitioner. The Enquirying Officer himself held that Charge No. 6 was not proved. However, he was held that remaining charges were well proved against the petitioner. Even assuming that the prevailing market rate was higher than was paid to the vendors by the petitioner, Government of Rajasthan was not put to any pecuniary loss by way of payment of lesser stamps duty and penalty. It is not the case of the Government of Rajasthan that the sale consideration has not been correctly mentioned in the sale-deeds. Even in that case, the stamp duty was payable on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deeds and not on the market value of the land sold or actual consideration passed. Revenue of State V. Shri Karni Singhji, (1), may be made here. The other charges were not related to any pecuniary matter and as such there was no question of pecuniary loss caused to the Government. It is, therefore, difficult to sustain the order under challenge.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the State of Rajasthan dated January 28, 1981 (Annexure 5) is quashed. No order as to costs. .;