KEJRIWAL, J. - (1.) IN the year 1989 the petitioner was holding the post of Deputy Director, Ayurved Department, Ajmer. Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') were initiated against him. The petitioner was given charge-sheet on 29. 12. 1989, which reads as below : *** During the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioner retired from service on 30. 6. 1991. The Enquiry Officer recorded the finding after enquiry, as stated below: *** The Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of negligence in the discharge of his duties. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer respondent No. 2, vide his order dated 26. 7. 1995 issued in the name of His Excellency the Governor, imposed penalty of deduction of 20% of pension for five years, on the petitioner. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. It has been prayed that the aforesaid order be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to release the petitioner's entire pension and gratuity along with interest at bank rate.
(2.) ON 6. 9. 1995, this Court issued show cause notice to the respondents as to why the writ petition be not admitted/finally disposed of. Notice has been served upon the respondents but none has appeared on their behalf. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Submission of the learned counsel is that Rule 14 of the Rules does not provide for with-holding whole or part of pension. Only Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, provides for deduction of pension. The C. C. A. Rules are applicable only when a Government employee is in employment. After retirement of a Government em- ployee, penalty cannot be imposed under the Rules. He further submits that penalty of deduction of pension can be imposed only if in the enquiry it is found that on account of mis-conduct or negligence of the delinquent, the Government has sufferred pecuniary loss. In the present case, there was no charge that on account of negligence, in-action or misconduct of the petitioner, the Government has suffe- rred any pecuniary loss. There is no finding of the Enquiry Officer also in this respect. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is that the petitioner was negligent in discharging his duties but the petitioner did not get any benefit. In such circumstances, the order of deduction of 20% of pension of five years, is without jurisdiction. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment reported in Srilal vs. State of Rajasthan (1), Gyan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2) and the un-reported judgment of this Court passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6/1991 and Writ Petition No. 4596/1991, Badri Narain Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 reads as below : ``170. Recoveries of losses from the pension. The Governor further reserves to himself the right of with-holding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, If in a departmental of judicial proceeding, the pen- sioner is found guilty of grave mis-conduct or negligence during the period of his service rendered upon re-employment after retirement, (a) provided that such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer, be dee- med to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service; (b) such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employ ment; (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor, (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service; (c) no such Judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than 4 years before such institu- tion; and (d) the Rajasthan Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed. '' A bare perusal of this Rule will show that a right has been reserved by the Governor in imposition of penalty of with-holding or withdrawing the pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a specified period only when it is found that pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government. In the present case, from the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it does not reveal that the Government has sufferred any pecuniary loss on account of the petitioner. The case is covered by the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner. In such circumstances, the order directing the deduction of 20% pension of the petitioner for five years, is wholly without jurisdiction. Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, is not at all attracted in the present case. Consequently, I allow the Writ Petition and set aside the order dated 26. 7. 1995, marked Annexure 2 and direct the respondents to release petitioner's entire pension. No order as to costs. 1996 RLW 1 .;