[2025:RJ-JP:16005] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2366/2001 Ummed Singh Nathwat S/o Shri Narain Singh Nathwat, 44 Venkateshwar Colony, Sodala, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of Personnel Gr.-III Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Dy. Conservator Of Forest, Mixed Plantation Scheme, Jaipur West, Mini Secretariat, second Floor, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Datt Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 09/04/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner has questioned the charge-sheet dated 16.03.2001 communicated to the petitioner on 27.03.2001 and has prayed to quash the same. 2. Relevant facts stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Forester/Depot Supervisor in respondent-Department on 11.12.1970. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Ranger Gr.II vide order dated 21.06.1977, however, vide order dated 19.06.2000, the petitioner was compulsory retired in exercise of powers under Rule 53(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter [2025:RJ-JP:16005] (2 of 12) [CW-2366/2001 referred to, the Rules of 1996’). It was stated by the petitioner that after retirement of the petitioner, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 16.03.2001 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958) containing as many as 4 charges including charges relating to causing financial loss to the Government. 3. It appears that instead of filing reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner opted to challenge the same by way of filing the instant writ petition. 4. Vide order dated 18.05.2001, ex-parte interim order was passed by this Court directing the respondents that till further orders they shall not proceed with any enquiry against the petitioner. 5. Thereafter, reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents on 05.08.2005 opposing the prayer made by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the charge- sheet on the following grounds: (a) after retirement charge-sheet could not have been issued under Rule 16 of CCA Rules as after retirement he was no longer a government employee. (b) after retirement, prior to issuing charge-sheet sanction of His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan was required under the Rules, however, such sanction has been granted without application of mind. (c) Charge-sheet has been issued in non-compliance of Rule 16(2) of the CCA Rules, 1958. [2025:RJ-JP:16005] (3 of 12) [CW-2366/2001 (d) Rule 170(b) of the RSR was also not applicable in case of the petitioner. (e) Similarly situated person, who was also issued similar charge-sheet has been exonerated after enquiry, therefore, no fruitful purpose is likely to achieve by permitting the respondent to continue the enquiry pursuant to the impugned charge-sheet. 7. The respondents while opposing the writ petition have argued in the following manner:- (i) Scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of questioning the charge-sheet under the Disciplinary Rules is very very limited and charge-sheet can be challenged only on the ground that it was issued by competent authority against the prevailing statutory Rules or there are patent malafides appearing at the face value. (ii) It was also submitted that charge-sheet cannot be challenged by the petitioner without filing reply to the charge- sheet as merely issuance of charge-sheet would not ipso facto be termed as initiation of enquiry for the reason that in appropriate matters, the disciplinary authority after being satisfied with the Reply to the charge-sheet, may take a decision for dropping the matter then and there. Hence, the writ petition is premature and is liable to be rejected. (iii) It was submitted that merely mentioning any incomplete or wrong provision of Rule in the charge-sheet would not make it null and void and would not create any ground for challenge to the charge-sheet. (iv) It was also submitted that His Excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan while granting sanction is not required to pass a [2025:RJ-JP:16005] (4 of 12) [CW-2366/2001 detailed speaking order. The entire material along with file, as per procedure is placed before His Excellency for according the sanction, which has been done in this case also, hence the ground raised by the petitioner that the sanction has been granted without application of mind is totally misconceived and is liable to be rejected. (v) There is no violation of Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1958, the charge-sheet framed against the petitioner revealing definite charges on the basis of the allegation on which the enquiry is proposed to be held. (vi) It has also been submitted that there is no legal bar in issuing the charge-sheet against a retired employee and that can be done within the frame work of the prevailing Rules. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Navin Kumar Sinha (Civil Appeal No. 1279/2024) decided on 19.11.2024, judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Sabu Joseph (W.P. No. 51898/2015), decided on 04.01.2016, judgment of Guahati High Court in the case of Jyotish Chandra Pathak vs. State of Assam and ors. (WP (C) No.5844/2003) decided on 23.08.2005, judgment of this Court in the case of Chhotu Singh Alias Chhod Singh (since deceased) through his Lrs and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. (DBSAW No.51/2023), decided on 02.01.2024. 9. Whereas the respondents have relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. The State of Raj. And ors. (SBCWP No. 12682/2024), decided on 05.03.2025, judgment in the case of Braj Mohan Singh Bareth Vs. State of [2025:RJ-JP:16005] (5 of 12) [CW-2366/2001 Raj. And ors. (DBSAW No. 659/2015), decided on 11.09.2024 and judgment in the case of Ram Singh Vs. State of Raj. And Ors. (SBCWP No.768, 3774 and 5793/1995) decided on 01.10.1997. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have examined the record. 11. First and foremost submission made by the petitioner is that after retirement he cannot be considered to be existing government service, therefore, charge-sheet under Rule 16 of RSR cannot be issued is wholly misconceived in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have clarified that they have issued the charge-sheet under Rule 170-b of RSR. Provisions of Rule 170(b) RSR are para- materia to Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, which reads as under: “Rule 170: Recoveries of losses from the pension : The Governor further reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension of 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 Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including 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 deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it [2025:RJ-JP:16005] (6 of 12) [CW-2366/2001 was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service". (b) Such department proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement of during his re-employment: (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. 12. Similarly Rule 7 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, lays down following provisions are as under:- “7. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. (1)The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:Provided that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed:Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of [Rupees Three thousand twenty five per mensem] [Substituted 'rupees one thousand two hundred seventy five per mensem' by Notification No. G.S.R. 111A, dated 12.9.2008 (w.e.f. 18.9.1996).]. [2025:RJ-JP:16005] (7 of 12) [CW-2366/2001 (2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service:Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the Governor. (b)The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment - (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 four 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 Government servant during his service. (3)No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant 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 in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (4)In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in Rule 90 shall be sanctioned. (5)Where the Governor decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. [2025:RJ-JP:16005] (8 of 12) [CW-2366/2001 (6)For the purpose of this rule, - (a)departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the charges together with a statement of allegations on which they are based, or the proposal of Government to take disciplinary action together with the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken, are issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted - (i)in the case of criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and (ii)in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the court.” 13. In the case of Ram Singh (supra), this Court has clearly held that it is true that the penalties as provided under Rule 14 of the punishment and Appeals Rules, 1958 can only be imposed if the employee is in service and not superannuated but, under sub- clause 4 of Rule 14, there is a provision to the fact that there can be a cut in the pension and in such situation one of the punishment as proposed in sub-clause 4 of Rule 14 is also similar to Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rule and it would not make any difference if the pensioner is proceeded with under Rule 16 of the Classification and Appeal rules, 1958. Hence, under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the charge-sheet under Rule 16 could not have been issued against the petitioner who had retired by the date charge-sheet was issued. 14. As regards grant of sanction for issuance of charge-sheet, the provisions of Rule 170(b) of RSR as well as Rule 7 of Rajasthan Pension Rules 1996 are quite clear that the charge- [2025:RJ-JP:16005] (9 of 12) [CW-2366/2001 sheet shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor, however, it nowhere states that Governor while granting the sanction is required to pass speaking order. 15. In the instant case by way of submitting one additional affidavit in compliance of the order dated 05.03.2025 earlier passed by the Coordinate Bench, an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents whereby the Note-sheet on which His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan accorded his sanction has been placed on record, which shows that the entire file along with proposal to issue charge-sheet was placed before His Excellency Governor and after perusing the same, the proposal of the State Government has been approved by His Excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan, therefore, there is no illegality in the sanction granted by His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan and the Governor is not required to pass any speaking order while according to sanction for issuance of charge-sheet. 16. In the case of Jyotish Chandra Pathak (supra) has held that the power of sanction is nothing but an executive action of the Government provided under the Rules. 17. After perusing the charge-sheet, I do not find that the charges framed in the charge-sheet are neither vague nor unspecific, therefore, the ground of non-compliance of Rule 16(2) of the Rules of 1958 has raised by the petitioner is totally misconceived and is liable to be rejected. 18. So far as the scope of challenging the charge-sheet issued under CCA Rules, a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Raj. And ors.:SBCWP No.13682/2024, decided on 05.03.2025, this Court has relied [2025:RJ-JP:16005] (10 of 12) [CW-2366/2001 upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.K. Dhawan reported in (1993) 2 SCC 56 as well as another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Sangram Keshari Misra reported in (2010) 13 SCC 311, held that normally a charge-sheet a charge- sheet cannot be quashed prior to conclusion of the enquiry and this Court has explicitly held in the aforesaid judgment that a writ petition generally does not lie against the charge-sheet unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. It has also been held that charge-sheet cannot be interfered with by the Court lightly or in a routine manner. The delinquent employee instead of seeking quashing of the charge-sheet at the initial stage must submit his/her reply before the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority and wait for conclusion of the proceedings. 19. In view of the above, in the instant writ petition where even reply to the charge-sheet was not filed by the petitioner, the writ petition cannot be maintained by the petitioner, the same is liable to be rejected. 20. The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench in the case of Chhotu Singh Alias Chhod Singh (supra) while examining the action under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rule, 1951, the Division Bench has held that the person concerned is required to serve a show cause notice specifying the action to be taken under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The aforesaid judgment is not attracted in the circumstances where a detailed charge-sheet specifying the allegations categorically has been served upon the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:16005] (11 of 12) [CW-2366/2001 21. Another judgment relied upon the by the petitioner in the case of Union of India vs. Sabu Joseph (supra) delivered by the Karnataka High Court deals with a situation where sanction of the President or his delegate was not obtained by the department before initiating the departmental enquiry, which situation is not there in the facts of the case in hand. In the instant case, admittedly, sanction of His Excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan has been taken prior to issuing the charge-sheet. 22. The judgment in the case of Navin Kumar Sinha (supra) has been delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in altogether different facts and in the light of the entirely different disciplinary rules, therefore, such judgment is also not applicable in the instant case. 23. Thus, in view of the above, where charge-sheet has been validly issued by the respondents, more so pursuant to the powers prescribed under Rules 7 (2)(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1996 as well as erstwhile Rule 170b of the RSR, it cannot be said that after retirement of the petitioner, charge-sheet could not have been issued. 22. The petitioner has also come out that since in the similar facts and circumstances charge-sheet was also issued to similar situated person in which he has been exonerated after a complete disciplinary enquiry, therefore, now it would be a futile exercise to permit the respondents to continue with the impugned charge- sheet. I have examined the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner and similar situated and there is substantial difference between the charge-sheet levelled against the petitioner qua the other alleged similarly situated person. Even otherwise on account [2025:RJ-JP:16005] (12 of 12) [CW-2366/2001 of there being separate charge and separate allegations there may be different set of evidence, hence no parity can be claimed at this stage and the charge-sheet against the petitioner cannot be quashed and the grounds raised by the petitioner are totally unfounded and baseless. 25. In view of the above, I find no substance and merit in the instant writ petition and same deserves to be dismissed. 26. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 27. While dismissing the writ petition, looking to the fact that proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet could not be proceeded further on account of ex-parte stay granted by this Court, the respondents are directed to proceed with the enquiry and to conclude the same within a period of three months. It goes without saying that while concluding this disciplinary action, opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. (ANAND SHARMA),J pcg/10