- (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the legality and validity of the order (Annex.P3) dated 12.8.2009 whereby, whilst holding the petitioner guilty of departmental delinquency, the penalty of withholding of the full pension was imposed on the petitioner.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the petitioner was employed as a UDC in the IGNP department of the State the respondent herein. He superannuated from service on 31.12.1999. It is alleged that certain complaints regarding misappropriation of funds, forgery etc. were received against the petitioner and some other engineers working in the IGNP. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that during the period from 1.4.1996 to 31.5.1999, he committed acts of grave irregularities causing a pecuniary loss of Rs. 8,28,977/- to the department and as a consequence, to the State Government. After his retirement, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet vide communication dated 13.6.2003 whereby was proposed to hold a departmental inquiry against him under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996") read with Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the CCA Rules") in pursuance of a sanction received from the Governor. After concluding the inquiry, the order imposing penalty came to be passed in the above terms. Since the order (Annex.P/3) dated 12.8.2009 has been passed at the behest of the Governor of Rajasthan, the petitioner has challenged the same directly before this Court by way of the instant writ petition as no statutory remedy is available against such order.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 and contends that as the instances/incidents of the so called irregularities in relation whereto the departmental inquiry was instituted against the petitioner were specifically fixed between the period ranging from 1.4.1996 to 31.5.1999, no departmental inquiry could have been instituted against the petitioner after the lapse of four years from the last date of the alleged misconduct as per the mandatory provisions of Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1996. He submits that the facts as available on record conclusive and beyond all manner of doubt depict that the departmental proceedings were instituted against the petitioner beyond the period of four years referred to in Rule 7 (2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1996. He submits that the date on which a departmental inquiry is deemed to be instituted is defined in Rule 7(6)(a) of the Pension Rules and as per the said definition, departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the charges together with a statement of allegations on which they are based, or the proposal of Government to take disciplinary action together with the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken are issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. Learned counsel submits that admittedly the charge-sheet along with the statement of allegations was issued to the petitioner, a retired Government employee on 13.6.2003 in relation to the alleged delinquency/misconduct for the specified period between 1.4.1996 to 31.5.1999. He urged that it is manifest from the above facts that the inquiry under Rule 7 was instituted against the pensioner beyond the period of four years and the finding of guilt recorded on the basis of such inquiry cannot be sustained as the inquiry itself is vitiated on account of violation of the mandatory Rule 7(iii) of the Rules of 1996. He places reliance on the judgment passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of NK Dalai v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2004 1 RajLW 597 and prays that the writ petition deserves to be accepted and the impugned order (Annex.P/3) dated 12.8.2009 deserves to be set aside qua the petitioner.;