Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) AS a consequence of joint charge -sheet dated 30th March, 1993, (Annexure -2), issued to the petitioner and one Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, the petitioner has been inflicted with the penalty of withholding of pension for all time. Aggrieved of the penalty imposed, vide impugned order dated 8th December, 2000 (Annexure -32), writ proceedings have been instituted praying for the following relief(s): "a) the respondents may be directed to produce relevant record before this Hon'ble Court. b) the impugned charge -sheet dated 30.03.1993, the impugned notice dated 12.11.1997 and 10.4.1999 as well as the impugned order dated 8.12.2000 may kindly be declared ultra -vires and unconstitutional and may be quashed and struck down with all consequential benefits. c) Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1996 may kindly be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional and may kindly be struck down. d) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy needs to be first noticed. The petitioner, while serving as a Teacher, successfully participated in the recruitment process, conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, (hereinafter referred to as 'RPSC', for short), to the Rajasthan Administrative Service (for short, 'RAS') and was appointed on 6th November, 1978, as a member of RAS. In due course of time, Senior Scale and thereafter Selection Scale, was accorded to him on 22nd March, 1989. The petitioner retired, from service attaining the age of superannuation, on 29th February, 1996. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that, but for the impugned order(s), his service record has been unblemished so much so that no adverse remarks were ever entered in his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports, ('APARs', for short) and no disciplinary proceeding was initiated. The petitioner, along with Shri R.S. Gupta, was served with a joint charge -sheet, dated 30th March, 1993, with reference to judicial orders and actions that related to the period from 19th May, 1989 to 14th December, 1990 and 16th August, 1991 to 22nd August, 1992, while the petitioner was posted as Settlement Officer, Jaipur. Shri R.S. Gupta, was holding the post of Assistant Settlement Officer. The petitioner was called upon to respond to the charge -sheet within 21 days. However, without considering the petitioner's reply to the charge -sheet, an order, for joint enquiry, was made on 19th April, 1993. While Shri R.S. Gupta, was placed under suspension, having regard to the nature and gravity of charges. The petitioner continued in active service for the allegations levelled against the petitioner, were minor and related to supervisory negligence. 2.1. A detailed reply to the charge -sheet was submitted on 6th December, 1993. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 31st July, 1996 (Annexure -26), with a finding of guilt on all the nine charges levelled against the petitioner, as would be evident from the enquiry report. 2.2. On 18th September, 1996, the petitioner submitted his representation, assailing the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer for being, contrary to the pleas raised by the petitioner and materials available on record as well as without an objective consideration. On 16th December, 1997, responded to the show cause notice on 12th November, 1997, to the proposed penalty of withholding his pension for a period of five years. 2.3. The petitioner was served with another show cause notice dated 10th April, 1999, proposing to withhold his entire pension for all times to come, to which, the petitioner responded, vide reply dated 30th May, 1999. The petitioner, vide impugned order dated 8th December, 2000, (Annexure -32), has been inflicted with the penalty of withholding of entire pension permanently.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahendra Singh, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, has vehemently contended that the impugned order, merely purports to affirm the so called findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, without discussing the evidence collected during the course of enquiry and without dealing with all the contentions raised. The impugned order did not reflect that the relevant record, including the charge -sheet, reply, evidence, enquiry report, findings and petitioner's representation, were considered by the Hon'ble Governor before the impugned order dated 8th December, 2000, was passed. The disciplinary proceedings have been assailed for being ultra vires to Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1958', for short), for the enquiry was ordered without bothering to wait for and consider the petitioner's reply to the charge -sheet. Neither the impugned proceedings have been continued and concluded nor the impugned order has been passed and signed by the same person, who issued the impugned charge -sheet.;