RASTOGI, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition petitioner has assailed order dt. 12. 12. 96 (Ann. 23) whereby he has been inflicted with penalty of withholding of full pension for life in exercise of power under Rule 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 ("r. S. R. "), after holding an inquiry under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 ("cca Rules" ).
(2.) THIS writ petition was earlier decided by this Court vide judgment dt. 04. 05. 2000 on the premises that petitioner has an alternative remedy of review available U/r 34 of CCA Rules. However, review petition preferred by him was rejected vide order dt. 16. 08. 99 holding that there is no power conferred upon the Governor to review the order dt. 12. 12. 96. Therefore, petitioner again approached this Court by filing review petition No. 34/2000; and this Court recalled its judgment dt. 04. 05. 2000 vide order dt. 16. 04. 2001. Accordingly the matter has come up for hearing. Facts in brief, are that petitioner entered into service in July, 1960, thereafter appointed as Assistant Engineer in August, 1961 and was regularly selected by Rajasthan Public Service Commission in September, 1961. He was further promoted as Executive Engineer on 25. 05. 73, so also as Superintending Engineer in November, 1990. Petitioner applied for seeking voluntary retirement U/r 244 (1) of RSR for contesting election of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly held in the year 1993, through telegram dt. 12. 10. 93 (Ann. 1) and looking to short time, pursuant to application for voluntary retirement (Ann. 1), he relinquished the charge of his post on 13. 10. 93 in the afternoon as per provisions of RSR and communicated it vide letter dt. 13. 10. 93 (Ann. 2 ). Petitioner submitted his nomination paper to contest election for Ramgarh (Alwar) assembly seat. Screening of nomination paper was held on 20. 10. 93, whereupon he was issued notice dt. 20. 10. 93 about his status as to whether he was Government servant or retired from service; and in response to which, he informed that he has already sought for his voluntary retirement U/r 244 (1) through telegram and relinquished his charge on 13. 10. 93 but consent from State Government has been awaited. However, Returning Officer rejected his nomination paper vide letter (Ann. 9 ). The State Government vide its letter dt. 05. 11. 93 (Ann. 10) rejected his application seeking voluntary retirement U/s 244 (1) of RSR on the premises that he was facing departmental inquiry U/r 16/18 of CCA Rules and pending inquiry, the application could not be accepted and consequently, he was called upon to join his duties. Refusal to grant permission for voluntary retirement (Ann. 10) was challenged by filing writ petition, which was dismissed vide order dt. 27. 01. 97 - as a consequence whereof, refusal to grant voluntary retirement vide order (Ann. 10) attained finality and is not open for adjudication in present petition.
(3.) PETITIONER was to retire on attaining superannuation age on 31. 03. 1994 but a day before it, he was served with a charge sheet U/r 16 of CCA Rules (Ann. 13) on 30. 03. 94 with the allegation of wilful absence from duty from 14. 10. 93 till attained age of superannuation on 31. 03. 94. However, provisional pension was sanctioned to petitioner vide order dt. 10. 02. 95 (Ann. 19) w. e. f. 01. 04. 94 and accordingly pension payment order (Ann. 20) was issued and thus he was getting provisional pension till conclusion of departmental inquiry. Pursuant to charge sheet dt. 30. 03. 94 (Ann. 13), a regular inquiry was held against him. Petitioner submitted his interim reply dt. 23. 07. 94 (Ann. 14) & final reply dt. 23. 07. 94 (Ann. 15) to the charge sheet inter-alia averring that the reason which was taken to be basis for rejecting application seeking voluntary retirement was not justified and the inquiry which is said to have been pending was of remote past period and mere pendency of inquiry cannot be taken as basis for denial to permit voluntary retirement to the petitioner and once he has submitted his application for voluntary retirement and got his charge relinquished on 13. 10. 93, as provided under the Rules, he could not be forced to work thereafter. The inquiry officer after conducting inquiry held the petitioner guilty and recorded a finding that once petitioner was informed about refusal to his voluntary retirement, he never applied for leave and there was no sanction of leave by competent authority, so his act of relinquishing the charge suo moto was not justified and the charge imputed against him of wilful absence from 14. 10. 93 to 31. 03. 94 stood proved. After the inquiry officer submitted his report dt. 24. 08. 95 (Ann. 17), disciplinary authority sent a copy of inquiry report to petitioner, to which he submitted detailed reply by reiterating his defence that the reason for which he did not report for duty was bonafide and after he relinquished his charge on 13. 10. 93, premise on which voluntary retirement declined was of pendency of inquiry against him, which could not be considered to be a valid basis for rejection of his voluntary retirement because pending inquiry related back to remote past period; and that apart, once he stood voluntarily retired from service, disciplinary inquiry could not further be continued against him for absence from duty since R. 170 of RSR empowers the competent authority to inflict penalty only when the act of delinquent government servant caused any pecuniary loss to the public exchequer or has committed a grave misconduct or negligence in discharge of his duty while in service. After submission of the reply, petitioner was served with a notice dt. 13. 11. 95 (Ann. 21) to show cause against tentative decision to withhold full pension for whole life U/r 169 (3) of RSR, to which also, petitioner made his representation (Ann. 22) on 06. 12. 95 but that did not prevail upon and respondents vide order dt. 12. 12. 96 after holding the petitioner guilty of wilful absence from duty, punished him with penalty of withholding full pension for whole life. Hence, this writ petition. ;