SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRAYER of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is as under:- " (i) to quash the charges sheets, entire enquiry proceedings, enquiry report dated October 28, 1996 and the punishment order dated October 8, 1998 and direct the respondents to release the petitioner's post pensionary benefits of gratuity and Commutation of Pension which were payable to him on the date of his retirement i. e. August 31, 1995 along with interest. (ii) if during the pendency of writ petition 30% pension amount is withdrawn, the same be directed to be paid back to the petitioner along with interest.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the petitioner stood retired on August 31, 1995 as Assistant Project Officer (RPS Scheme) Prior to his retirement the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated March 4, 1994 under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short `cca Rules' ). As per the memorandum the petitioner was charged in respect of his tenure while the petitioner was posted on deputation as Vikas Adhikari at Panchayat Samiti Sewar in the year 1982. It was alleged in the charge sheet that during that period various items were purchased without seeking prior permission of Panchayat Samiti and certain corrections were made in the Budget allotted to Panchayat Samiti. However, no allegation was made in regard to financial loss caused to the Government or ill motive or malafide on the part of the petitioner. The respondents vide order dated July 31, 1995 converted the enquiry from Rule 17 to Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. Enquiry Officer was appointed who submitted Enquiry Report on October 28, 1996 and vide order dated October 8, 1998 punishment was imposed on the petitioner whereby 30% of his pension was ordered to be stopped for five years. The respondents in the return pleaded that the petitioner was suitably punished and no relief can be granted to him. The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondents did not follow the procedure contemplated in Rule 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules (for short `rsr') before imposing the impugned penalty. It is canvassed that in view of the classification clause appended to Rule 170, the function of the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the departmental proceedings referred to in Rule 170 was only to reach a finding of charge and to submit a report recording its finding to the Government. It was then for the Government to consider the finding and take a final decision under Rule 170 of RSR. In case Government decide to take action under Rule 170 of RSR in the light of the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the Government was duty bound to serve a show cause notice on the government servant specifying the action proposed to be taken under Rule 170 and then the person concerned may required to submit his reply to show cause notice within such time as may be specified by the Government. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that as the show cause notice was not issued to the petitioner the entire disciplinary enquiry is vitiated. It was canvassed on behalf of the respondents that there is no irregularity in punishing the petitioner in view of the provisions of Rule 7 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short `1996 Rules' ). According to respondents 1996 Rules came into force w. e. f. October 16, 1996 and as they were procedural in nature they were applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner has been punished in view of 1996 Rules and no notice was required prior to imposing the penalty in question. Having pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the material on record, I find that the petitioner stood retired on August 31, 1995 and prior to his retirement charge sheet was issued under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules on March 4, 1994, which was converted under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules on July 31, 1995. A look at the scheme of 1996 Rules reveals that the said Rules came into force w. e. f. October 1, 1996. Sub Rule 2 (c) of Rule 168 of 1996 Rules provides that any case which pertains to the authorisation of pension to a Government servant who had retired before the commencement of these rules and is pending before such commencement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of old rule as if these rules had not been made. 1996 Rules are not applicable to the petitioner as he stood retired prior to October 1, 1996, when 1996 Rule came into force. It was therefore necessary for the respondents to serve show cause notice on the petitioner under Rule 170 of RSR before imposing the punishment of withholding the pension. Since the impugned order of punishment dated October 8, 1998 came to be passed without serving show cause notice on the petitioner, the said order is violative of Rule 170 of RSR and deserves to be set aside. Similar view has been expressed in Shankar Lal Verma vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 4966/2001, decided on January 16, 2003) (1), which was affirmed by the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan vs. Shankar Lal Verma (DBCSA No. 678/2003, decided on September 18, 2003)
(3.) IN view of what I have discussed herein above, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of punishment dated October 8, 1998. I direct the respondents to pay the entire outstanding amount of pension to the petitioner within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. .;