- (1.) THE petitioner, a retired Tehsildar, by this petition for writ is questioning correctness of the order dated 01.09.2011, passed under the orders of the Governor of Rajasthan exercising powers under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996').
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition for writ are that the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer under a memorandum dated 15.10.1988 desired to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958'). After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 14.08.1989. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 19.03.1996. As per the findings given under the report of the enquiry officer, the charge No.2 and 5 were not found established, however, the charge No.1, 3 and 4 were found established in part. At the time of submission of the enquiry report, the petitioner stood retired from service, therefore, the report of enquiry was forwarded to the State Government as per the provisions of Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1951'). On promulgation of the Rules of 1996, the proceedings remitted to the State Government under Rule 170 of the Rules of 1951 were treated as proceedings under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996. A notice to show cause was given to the petitioner alongwith a copy of the enquiry report to submit comments about the findings given and also with regard to the proposed punishment. A detailed explanation was submitted by the petitioner. An order of penalty then was passed on 08.07.1999 subjecting the petitioner with a penalty of stoppage of one-fourth part of the pension for a period of three years. By way of filing a petition for writ before this court, a challenge was given to the order dated 08.07.1999. The writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4889/1999) came to be accepted on 26.02.2007 on the count that the order dated 08.07.1999 was passed without proper application of mind and without prescribing adequate reasons. The State Government preferred an appeal giving challenge to the order dated 26.02.2007 and that came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this court on 24.01.2008, keeping it open for the respondents to pass an order afresh by due application of mind. After disposal of the appeal, the order impugned came to be passed on 01.09.2011.
(3.) THE argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 01.09.2011 too is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity. It is submitted that though the impugned order is running in six pages, but as a matter of fact, it does not disclose required application of mind. The disciplinary authority, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, has not taken into consideration the response given by the petitioner to the notice to show cause dated 16.09.1998.;