Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 19.1.2000 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 21.4.1998 (Annexure-1) passed by the State Government (respondent No. 1) by which the petitioner was awarded punishment/penalty of stoppage of 50% pension forever, after holding guilty of all the three charges levelled against him in an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the CCA Rules") and the order dated 30.6.1999 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the review petition of the petitioner seeking review of the order Annexure-1 dated 21.4.1998 was rejected, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to pay entire pension.
(2.) It may be stated here that during the pendency of this writ petition, the original petitioner Durga Dan Charan (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased petitioner") had died on 13.11.2001 and vide order dated 9.7.2002, his wife Smt. Akla Devi was taken on record as his LR.
(3.) It arises in the following circumstances : The deceased-petitioner was superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.1.1991. Thereafter, after his retirement, on 25.11.1994, a charge-sheet (Annexure-R/1) under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was served upon the deceased petitioner and in the charge-sheet, three charges were levelled against the deceased petitioner and the sum and substance of the charges are as follows: "Charge No.1 That deceased petitioner remai ned Sub-Divisional Officer, Pokaran from 28.8.1989 to 9.1.1991 and he has retired from service on 31.1.1991 and though he was transferred from Pokaran vide order No. P.1(1) Karmik/Ka-4/91 dated 1.1.1991 and he received that transfer order, but still he decided cases under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") on 8.1.1991 and 9.1.1991 and thus, he misused the power and post. Charge No. 2 That deceased petitioner on 8.1.1991 and 9.1.1991 conferred the khatedari rights against the Rules and thus, he misused his power and office. Charge No. 3 That on 8.1.1991, in case No. 74/90, deceased petitioner conferred khatedari rights in favour of dead person-Ram Ratan and thus, he misused his power and he exceeded his jurisdiction by conferring khatedari rights in favour of a dead person. Thus, he lowered down the image of the post of SDO.";