[2025:RJ-JP:37918] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 368/2007 Roop Singh Harsana, S/o Shri brij Lal, aged about 62 years, R/o Bhayala Pura, Hindaun City, District Karauli. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Van Bhawan, Jaipur. 3. Dy. Conservator of Forest, Soil Conservation, Karauli. 4. Director, Pension Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak Mr. Ganesh Dutt Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC for R-4 Mr. Aditya Singh, Dy.G.C. for R-1 & 3 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 17/09/2025 1. Although so many prayers have been made in the instant writ petition but during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the prayers only in respect of the challenge to the order dated 10.04.2006 and for granting consequential benefits after quashing the order dated 10.04.2006. 2. It is stated that by virtue of exercise of powers under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, the petitioner was compulsorily retired w.e.f. 17.06.2000/19.06.2000. Although, earlier charge-sheets were issued under Rule 16 against the petitioner for committing misconduct, yet on account of the compulsory retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 17.06.2000/17.06.200 the disciplinary enquiries [2025:RJ-JP:37918] (2 of 4) [CW-368/2007] pursuant to those charge-sheets were dropped vide orders dated 07.01.2002 and 20.08.2003. Thereafter, one certificate was also issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Rajasthan, Jaipur certifying to the effect that, no inquiry either under Rule 16 or 17 of Rajasthan Service (CCA) Rules, 1958 was pending against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, after his compulsory retirement under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996, post retiral benefits have been released to the petitioner, yet he has not been granted the remaining salary and other benefits for the period during which, he was placed under the suspension from 22.07.1996 to 13.05.1997. When the petitioner claimed such benefits of the suspension period, one order dated 10.04.2006 was issued whereby, except subsistence allowance, no other monetary benefit was granted to the petitioner for the aforesaid suspension period although, such suspension period was counted for the purpose of grant of pension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the charge-sheets issued to the petitioner earlier have been closed for whatever reason, no provision of law whatsoever authorizes, the respondents to withhold or forfeit the remaining salary/monetary benefits otherwise admissible to the petitioner during the suspension period. The order dated 10.04.2006 is totally arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be quashed. 5. The writ petition was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents by way of filing of a reply and it has been submitted that although on account of committing serious [2025:RJ-JP:37918] (3 of 4) [CW-368/2007] misconduct, charge-sheet under Rule 16 was issued to the petitioner and during the inquiry, he was also placed under suspension from 22.07.1996 to 13.07.1997, yet such inquiries were dropped, not on account of any finding of exoneration by the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority, but only on account of the fact that treating the petitioner to be deadwood, he was compulsorily retired under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996. Hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents were justified in forfeiting the remaining salary and other monetary benefits of the aforesaid suspension period. Learned counsel indicated that Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (RSR), 1951 authorized the competent authority to forfeit the benefits of the suspension period in such cases. 6. I have heard the submissions made by the parties and considered the record. 7. Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Service Rules is being reproduced hereunder:- "Condition for drawing pay and allowances: subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules an official shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date he assumes the duties of that post and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties." 8. Bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule, nowhere leads to an inference that the issue of monetary benefits during the suspension period can be treated or dealt with by the respondent- Government in the aforesaid Rule. As such reference of Rule 22 in the impugned order dated 10.04.2006 is totally misconceived. The aforesaid Rule does not empower the respondent-Government to forfeit the benefits otherwise accrued to the employee during the suspension period. [2025:RJ-JP:37918] (4 of 4) [CW-368/2007] 9. Although, Rule 54 of the Rules of 1951 empowers the competent authority to withhold or forfeit the remaining salary or monetary benefits of the suspension period but, such Rule is also applicable only in the cases where the delinquent employee was held guilty after conducting the disciplinary inquiry. In the instant case, the enquiry against the petitioner was never admittedly concluded and it was dropped on account of retirement of the petitioner, albeit compulsory. Hence, under these circumstances, even under Rule 54 of RSR also, the respondents could not have forfeited the remaining salary and other benefits otherwise admissible to the petitioner employee. 10. No other statutory power has been shown by the respondents so as to justify their action vide order dated 10.04.2006. 11. In the light of above, this Court deems it just and proper to hold that the petitioner was entitled to the remaining salary and other benefits of suspension period from 22.07.1997 to 13.05.1997 and accordingly, order dated 10.04.2006 is quashed being arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to sanction and release the remaining salary admissible to the petitioner during the aforesaid suspension period and other consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/44