Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) BY this petition for writ validity, propriety and correctness of the order dt. 08.07.1999 withholding part of petitioner s pension is questioned.
(2.) IN brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a memorandum under R.16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 15.10.1988. On denial of charges, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 19.03.1996. After submission of the Enquiry Report, but before taking any decision thereupon, the petitioner stood retired from service on 30.09.1996, therefore, the matter was referred to the Governor under R.170 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1951 (as then was existing). A notice for tentative penalty dt. 26.03.1998 was served upon the petitioner, however, no copy of Enquiry Report was given to him, therefore, along with a separate notice a copy of the Enquiry Report was supplied to the petitioner. An action thereafter was taken against the petitioner in accordance with R.7 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 by seeking explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation pointing out various illegalities and lacunaes in holding the disciplinary proceedings. By the order impugned, the Governor decided to impose a penalty of withholding of part of pension for a period of three years. Hence, this petition for writ is preferred. While assailing validity and propriety of the order impugned, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the order deserves to be quashed being an unreasoned and non -speaking order. It is emphasized by counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned does not mention even the charges, findings with reasons thereon and also not deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation submitted after receiving the notice for tentative penalty. Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out various lacunaes in holding of the disciplinary proceedings.
(3.) IN reply to the writ petition the respondents in general have defended the order impugned.;