J.C.VERMA, J. - (1.) ALL the three writ petitions involved the same question of law as to the applicability of Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and, therefore, they are being decided together Civil Writ Petition No. 5793/83 and Civil Writ Petition No. 768/93 also involve the same facts, similar charges and arise out of the similar cause of action.
(2.) ALL the three writ petitioners had been superannuated after attaining the age of 58 from their respective posts being held by them. Immediately after retirement on certain charges the petitioners were charged to face as enquiry. Charges related to certain misconducts as mentioned in the chargesheets. After the enquiry having been held, the writ petitioner Ram Singh and Deo Krishan Bohra were punished with punishment of withholding 1/5 of their pension for the period of 5 years. Similarly, the petitioner Ram Jeevan Dubey was also involved whereby, his pension, gratuity and capitation pension was involved. Common contention in all the three writ petitions is that under Rule 170 of the aforesaid rules, no enquiry could be held until and unless there is any pecuniary loss caused to the Govt. It is further stated that from reading of the charges in respect of all the petitioners, it is nowhere mentioned as to what pecuniary loss the Govt. had suffered as enumerated in the chargesheets. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in circumstances no provisions of Rule 170 of the Rules could be invoked. Another ground of attack which has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that at the time when the charges were issued, the petitioners had superannuated and they were not in the Govt. Service and, therefore, in any case, the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification and Control Appeal) Rule could not be made applicable to any of the petitioner and that the chargesheet itself was not in accordance with law, as no action could be taken under any of the punishment provided under Rule 14 of the Classification and Appeal Rules, 1958. It is further submitted that from the reading of the chargesheets, no offence has been made out of any pecuniary loss to the State and thus, not only initiation of the action against the petitioners but also the final order was not in accordance with law and, therefore, could not be sustained.
(3.) THE main point involved in the present writ petition is that whether after superannuation but, within the statutory period when the chargesheet had been issued, whether the Govt. was justified and legally competent to issue the chargesheet and, therefore, it is not necessary in the present case to narrate the facts as to when the petitioners had superannuated or as to what are the charges levelled against the petitioners. However, it is admitted fact from record that all the petitioners were issued chargesheets within four years from the date when the offence is said to have been committed from the date of issuance of the chargesheet.;