Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) AS a consequence of the proceedings conducted against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1958', for short), the competent authority made the impugned order dated 7/8th August, 2006, withholding 100% pension of the petitioner. Aggrieved of the order dated 7/8th August, 2006, the petitioner has instituted the instant writ proceedings praying for the following relief(s): - - "(i) quash the entire enquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner under rule 16 of the CCA Rules on the basis of charge sheet dated 10.4.1998 and the impugned punishment order dated 8.8.2006 and exonerate the petitioner from the charges levelled against him; (ii) further direct the respondents to release the entire pensionary benefits withheld by them with interest at the prevalent bank rate; (iii) any other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner. (iv) cost of this writ petition may also be awarded in favour of humble petitioner."
(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein, needs to be first noticed. The petitioner while working as Manager of Aklera Kray Vikray Sahkari Samiti Limited, District Jhalawar (for short 'Society'), was found responsible for financial irregularities resulting into losses to the Society on account of advance credit, payment of higher interest rate and misuse of the finances of the Society. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that while he was to retire on 30th April, 1998, attaining the age of superannuation, was served with a charge sheet on 10th April, 1998. An amount of Rs. 4,560/ - (Rupees: Four Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Only) per month with effect from 1st May, 1998, was allowed as provisional pension to the petitioner. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report on 31st December, 2003. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner along with communication/notice dated 7th April, 2005, calling upon the petitioner to submit his representation, if any. The petitioner was allowed an opportunity of personal hearing and vide impugned order dated 7/8th August, 2006, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of stoppage of 100% pension for all times. Reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously argued that there is no provision for withholding of 100% pension under the Rules of 1958, and therefore, the penalty imposed is bad in the eye of law. Though Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1996', for short), contemplates for withholding of the pension, but no specific loss was caused to the Society/Government, as would be evident from the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner.
(3.) REFERRING to the proceedings conducted under Section 72 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short 'Act of 1965'), the learned counsel urged that the charges, which were levelled against the petitioner, almost on identical set of facts, were found not to be proved, as would be evident from the order dated 29th January, 2009 as well as the appellate order dated 15th November, 2010. The findings arrived at by the Court of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kota Division, Kota, vide order dated 29th January, 2009, and by the Court of Additional Registrar (II), Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide order dated 15th November, 2010, completely exonerated the petitioner of the charges, based on same set of facts, and therefore, the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer while conducting the enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, cannot be sustained and so also the penalty imposed as a consequence thereof.;