- (1.) HEARD.
(2.) THE State of Rajasthan has questioned the legality of the order dated 18th July, 2002 passed by Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2934/2000. Facts in short are that petitioner was in service of the State of Rajasthan as Executive Engineer. He retired from the service on 30th September, 1993. Enquiry was initiated against him in the year 1987 under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958') for blocking money of the State Government by purchasing articles without necessity. There is no charge of any misappropriation or any illegal motive for making the purchase in the charge sheet as apparent from the statement of allegations placed on record. This fact is also not disputed by the counsel appearing on behalf of State that there is no allegation of illegal benefit derived by the employee in the aforesaid transaction. Charge of blocking money by purchasing articles contrary to the instructions issued by the State Government was framed. However, for the reasons best known to the respondents, enquiry was kept pending for more than 6-7 years and it was converted under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 for major punishment on 30th September, 1993, which decision had also published in the newspaper on 6th May, 1997. The order of withholding of 10% pension for a period of three years was passed in the year 2000, which was questioned by filing writ application. The Single Bench has held that enquiry could not have been converted from Rule 17 to Rule 16 and gave liberty to the State Government to proceed under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the order, the intra-court appeal has been preferred by the State. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that since decision was taken on the date of retirement, it was permissible to convert the enquiry from Rule 17 to Rule 16 as the nature of charges was serious. No case for interference was made out by Single Bench. Shri S.P. Mathur, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-petitioner has supported the order passed by Single Bench. Charge against the petitioner was only blocking the money of Rs.3,14,463. There was no charge of misappropriation. It was not the case of deriving any benefit by petitioner from the transaction. Enquiry was initiated under Rule 17. There was no rhyme or reason to convert equiry from Rule 17 to Rule 16 on the date when petitioner had retired. The notice of changing of enquiry was published after 4 years of retirement on 6th May, 1997 in daily news paper Young Leader/Rastradoot. Specific notice was required to be given for conversion of the enquiry from Rule 17 to Rule 16. No such notice has been placed on record. Division Bench in Dr. Kishan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 Rajasthan 55, held that the procedure for changing the enquiry from Rule 17 to Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 has to be adopted, unless prior notice in this regard is served, there cannot be any conversion. Apart from that, we have also found on facts that conversion of enquiry to one under Rule 16 of RSR was not appropriate. Notice for conversion of enquiry was published belatedly in the year 1997, whereas employee had retired in the year 1993. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Single Bench has rightly quashed the conversion of enquiry from Rule 17 to Rule 16. On the basis of aforesaid reasons, we find no ground to interfere.
(3.) RESULTANTLY, the appeal is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.;