- (1.) THE petitioner seeks to quash the punishment order dated December 11, 1997 (Ann.11).
(2.) BRIEF re'sume' of the fact is that the petitioner got superannuated on June 30, 1990. Thereafter the proceedings under Rule 30, 1990. Thereafter the proceedings under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short `1958, Rules') read with Rule 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules (for short `RSR') were initiated against the petitioner and the charge sheet was issued on January 7, 1991 in regard to the incident occurred on December 2, 1986. The only contention advanced before me by Mr. P.S. Asopa, Senior Advocate, is that the mandate of proviso (b) appended to Rule 170 of RSR has not been followed while issuing the charge sheet to the petitioner. The proviso (a) and (b) appended to Rule 170 of RSR, reads thus: (a) provided that such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the office 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 proceedings 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 proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement of 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 form service could be made in relation the officer during his service." A look at the said provisions appended to Rule 170 of RSR demonstrates that under proviso (a) if the departmental proceedings is pending before the date of superannuation of the employee, it shall be deemed to be continued and concluded by the Disciplinary Authority in the manner as if the employee had continued in service. But the proviso (b) appended to Rule 170 of RSR provides that such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re employment, it shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor and it shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. Undeniably, before issuance of the charge sheet against the petition no sanction was accorded by the Governor to the respondents. It is also established form the record that the charge sheet relates to the incident which occurred on December 2, 1986 and the charge sheet came to be issued on January 7, 1991. Therefore, the charge sheet was in respect of the event, which took place prior to four years of issuing the charge sheet.
(3.) MR. Mahendra Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents, although made attempt to justify the action of respondents, but I am not impressed with the submissions of learned counsel for respondents. After having reflected over the rival submission and carefully scanned the material on record, I am of the view that the issuance of the charge sheet against the petitioner is contrary to the proviso (b) appended to Rule 170 of RSR, and therefore, the punishment order dated December 11, 1997 (ann.11) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Resultantly, I allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated December 11, 1997 (Ann.11). The petitioner shall be entitled to all the arrears with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to comply with the order within 60 days. The parties shall bear their own cots. ;