PARIHAR, J. - (1.) PETITIONER, while working as Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation), Chatargarh, was issued a chargesheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 alongwith a co-delinquent employee vide memorandum dated 5. 4. 1991. The petitioner also retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31. 12. 1991. Since no reply to the chargesheet was filed by the petitioner, an inquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 7. 7. 1994. A joint inquiry was to be held against the petitioner as well as the other co-delinquent employee. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 14. 8. 1996. A copy of the inquiry report was also supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 30. 8. 1996.
(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide order dated 26. 8. 1997 proposing a penalty of stoppage of 20% pension for five years. After considering the representation made by the petitioner and with consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, a penalty of stoppage of 10% pension for five years was imposed on the petitioner side order dated 13. 5. 1999. Review Petition, filed by the petitioner against the above penalty, was also dismissed by the competent authority vide order dated 19. 10. 2001. Hence the present writ petition challenging the order of punishment dated 13. 5. 1999 as also the order dated 19. 10. 2001, passed by the reviewing authority. Mr. Rajendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the disciplinary proceedings mainly on the ground of violation of provisions of Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, submitted that since the chargesheet was served on the petitioner much after his retirement, the disciplinary proceedings could not have been commenced without prior sanction of the Governor. It has further been submitted that since no pecuniary loss has been caused to the State Government, even the proceedings under Rule 170 could not have been continued. It has further been submitted that the alleged order of allotment, passed by the petitioner, was a quasi judicial order, as such, on the basis of the same, the petitioner could not have been punished in the present matter. Mr. Soni also submitted that the punishment of stoppage of pension should be imposed in very rare hard cases. Mr. N. K. Maloo, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that in the special allotment scheme for dis-placed persons only in the notified area, the allotment of land could be made. However, in the present case the petitioner had allotted the land to a person in the area which had not even been notified by the State Government and further, even the price had also not been fixed. It was a total culpable negligence on the part of the petitioner, therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner was justified. It has further been submitted that during the disciplinary proceedings the petitioner had been given full opportunity of hearing and there is no procedural defect in the present case. So far as provisions of Rule 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules are concerned, Mr. Maloo has placed reliance on the case of State of Orissa vs. Kalicharan Mahapaatra & Ors. (1 ). After hearing learned counsel for the parties. I have carefully gone through the material on record, the relevant provisions of the Rules and also the judgments cited at bar. The chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 5. 4. 1991, much prior to his retirement. As has been submitted in reply, filed on behalf of respondent, that the chargesheet could not have been served on the petitioner since he was continuously avoiding to receive the same. Be that as it may, the disciplinary proceedings had already been initiated on 5. 4. 1991 itself, which is further evident from the fact that the co-delinquent employee had already submitted his reply to the same chargesheet on 19. 6. 1991, much prior to the retirement of the petitioner. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, compliance of Rule 170 was not required to be made in so far as seeking prior sanction of the Governor.
(3.) SO far as objection in regard to pecuniary loss is concerned, the provisions of Rule 170 has to be read as a whole, Rule 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules is quoted here as under : " Rule 170. Recoveries of losses from the pension-The Government further reserves to himself the right of withholding 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. " From a bare reading of the above provision it is evident that the Governor has a right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a specified period and also has a right to order 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. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then in cases where there is no pecuniary loss and still a grave misconduct and negligence is proved against an employee, he can never be punished after his retirement, which is not the intention of the legislature at all. The above view is further fortified from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Kalicharan Mahapatra & Ors. (supra ). The objection in regard to alleged order of allotment passed by the petitioner, been a quasi judicial order, also cannot be sustained. The allotment of land in the present case had been made under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975. A bare reading of the provisions of the above Rules show that the order of allotment is only an administrative/executive order. It cannot be said to be a quasi judicial order. It is only when the allotment is challenged by any person before the appellate authority or the reviewing authority, the quasi judicial functions start from that stage. ;