[2025:RJ-JP:13817] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9556/2014 Ayub Ahmed S/o Shri Noor Mohd., R/o Village And Post Nahargarh, Tehsil Kishanganj, Distt. Baran. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Divisional Commissioner, Kota. 2. District Collector, Baran. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/03/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kota Division, Kota by which the appeal submitted by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Office of the District Collector (Land Records), Baran, by which the order dated 29.10.2010 has been upheld and instead of order of removal from service, an order has been passed for deduction of 67% amount of pension of the petitioner. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge- sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘Rules of 1958’) was served upon the petitioner with the allegation that certain [2025:RJ-JP:13817] (2 of 5) [CW-9556/2014] manipulation was done in the Land Revenue Record by the petitioner. Counsel submits that for the similar charge, a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner and the co- delinquent and when they faced trial before the competent court of law, the benefit of probation was granted to them by the Criminal Court but in the disciplinary proceedings, the punishment of removal from service was passed against the petitioner. 3. Counsel submits that the removal order dated 08.06.1994 was assailed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, but, the said appeal was rejected vide order dated 11.09.1996. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5272/1966 and the said writ petition was partly allowed by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2010 and the respondents were directed to pass a fresh order of penalty, against the petitioner instead of passing the order of removal from service, in accordance with law. 4. Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order, a fresh order has been passed by the respondents on 19.12.2011 by which a decision has been taken to deduct 67% of pension amount of the petitioner, but under Rule 14 & 16 of the Rules of 1958, there is no provision for deduction of pension amount, hence, under these circumstances, the order passed by the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that for the mis-conduct of fabrication in the Land Revenue Record, the petitioner not only faced criminal trial but also disciplinary proceedings. Counsel submits in both the [2025:RJ-JP:13817] (3 of 5) [CW-9556/2014] proceedings, the charges were found to be proved against the petitioner and accordingly, in disciplinary proceedings, a decision was taken for removal of the petitioner from service vide order dated 08.06.1994. Counsel submits that even in the criminal case also, the petitioner was found to be guilty but instead of sentencing, the benefit of probation was granted to him. Counsel submits that this Court on earlier occasion, while deciding the writ petition, submitted by the petitioner, has taken a lenient view while issuing direction to the State Authorities to pass some other penalty, in place of removal from service. 6. Counsel submits that in the meantime, the petitioner stood retired, hence, under these circumstances, no punishment order under Rule 14 & 16 of the Rules of 1958 could have been passed against him and accordingly, a decision was taken for deduction of his 67% of pension amount. Counsel submits that the order passed by the authorities is just and proper which requires no interference of this Court. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 8. Perusal of the record indicates that for the misconduct of the petitioner with regard to fabrication in the Land Revenue Record, the disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by way of issuance of charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. 9. This fact is not in dispute that not only the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, but also a criminal case was registered against him for the above charges, wherein, he was found guilty by the competent court of law. The Criminal Court found the petitioner guilty for the charges but [2025:RJ-JP:13817] (4 of 5) [CW-9556/2014] instead of passing of appropriate orders, he was granted the benefit of probation. However, the petitioner was punished with the penalty of removal from service by the disciplinary authority on 08.06.1994 in the departmental proceedings, and the appeal submitted against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.09.1996. 10. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner approached this Court, by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5272/1996 and the aforesaid petition submitted by the petitioner was partly allowed after taking into account, the judgment passed by the criminal court wherein benefit of probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act was extended to the petitioner. Hence, a lenient view was taken in favour of the petitioner and the respondents were directed to pass fresh order of punishment. 11. It is worthy to note here that in the meantime, the petitioner stood retired, hence, under these circumstances, he could not be punished with the penalties, as prescribed under Rule 14 & 16 of the Rules of 1958. 12. Now the question remains for consideration of this Court is that whether, deduction of 67% of pension amount of the petitioner, by the respondents, vide impugned order dated 19.12.2011 is justified or not. 13. Looking to the misconduct of the petitioner which was found to be proved not only by the disciplinary authority but also by the Criminal Court, this Court finds no error in the same and the order passed by the disciplinary authority is just and proper which requires no interference of this Court. Accordingly, this Court finds [2025:RJ-JP:13817] (5 of 5) [CW-9556/2014] no merits and substance in this writ petition and the same is hereby rejected. 14. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GARIMA /142