Jaswant Singh Sra vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1103 Raj

                                         (1 of 7)                 [SAW-1440/2019]


     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR


               D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1440/2019

Jaswant Singh Sra S/o Shri Gurbachan Singh, Aged About 80

Years, By Caste Jat, R/o 4-D-6, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar,

District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, through The Deputy Secretary To The

Government, Department Of Personnel (A-III), Secretariat,

Rajasthan, Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. H.S. Sidhu.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Utkarsh Singh on behalf of
                                Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                              JUDGMENT



Judgment pronounced on                  :::            24/01/2022
Judgment reserved on                    :::            13/12/2021



BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)

1. The instant intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant

Jaswant Singh Sra being aggrieved of the order dated 08.08.2019

passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.4392/2002 dismissing the writ petition preferred by

the petitioner for assailing the order dated 10.09.2002 whereby,

the petitioner, being a retired public servant, was handed down

(2 of 7) [SAW-1440/2019]

with a penalty of withholding of 10% pension for a period of 3

years.

2. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at

bar and, have gone through the material available on record.

3. The petitioner was working as Dy. Conservator of Forest and

superannuated from that post on 31.07.1997. Prior to his

retirement, a charge-sheet was served to the petitioner on

28.04.1997 alleging that while working as Dy. Conservator of

Forest, Churu from 03.03.1986 to 21.05.1987, the petitioner

sanctioned nurseries to six individuals even though they were not

eligible for the same. This sanction was granted by the petitioner

under the Policy of the Forest Department of Rajasthan to provide

employment and source of income to those individuals who were

essentially living below poverty line. In addition thereto, the Policy

required as a condition of eligibility that individual who could be

sanctioned the nurseries had to own land. Three allegations were

primarily set out in the charge-sheet.

(i) Granting excess saplings numbering 18.65 lacs against the

permissible figures of 3 lacs,

(ii) None of the individuals, who were granted the sanction, were

eligible because all of them belong to the same family and only

one of them owned land, and

(iii) The applicants/so-called beneficiaries were affluent persons

owning industries. An allegation was also levelled that saplings

were never supplied and the bills to the tune of Rs.1,06,423.75/-

were fraudulent/fabricated.

(3 of 7) [SAW-1440/2019]

4. The appellant petitioner denied the charges. A full-fledged

enquiry was conducted on these charges. The enquiry officer held

that the charge No.1 was partly proved. The charge No.2 was fully

proved but the charge No.3 was not proved.

The State Government, upon receiving the enquiry report,

issued a disagreement notice proposing that findings in respect of

part exoneration from Charge No.1 and full exoneration from

Charge No.3 deserved to be reversed. The appellant petitioner

submitted a representation against the notice of disagreement.

After considering the defences of the appellant writ-petitioner, the

disciplinary authority held that all the charges were proved and on

the basis of the findings of the disciplinary authority, a notice

proposing penalty of withholding of 10% pension for a period of 3

years was issued. Reply of the petitioner was received; the opinion

of the RPSC was sought which concurred with the proposal of

imposition of penalty and accordingly, the penalty was imposed on

the appellant petitioner by order dated 10.09.2002 which was

assailed in the writ petition. As stated above, the writ petition was

dismissed by order dated 08.08.2019 which is challenged in this

special appeal.

5. Shri H.S. Sidhu, learned counsel representing the appellant

writ-petitioner, vehemently and fervently urged that the findings

as recorded in the order imposing penalty as well as the order

passed by the learned Single Bench are contrary to record and

hence, the same cannot be sustained. As a matter fact, the

learned Single Bench committed grave error while holding that

pecuniary loss of Rs.1,06,423.75/- was suffered by the State

Government. He further submitted that for the same charges, the

(4 of 7) [SAW-1440/2019]

Regional Forest Officer Shri Ravi Shankar Sharma and the Forest

Guard Shri Prakash Narain Gupta were exonerated by the enquiry

officer and thus, there was no occasion for inflicting the penalty

upon the appellant who was a retired government servant.

Without prejudice to the argument that the charges are not

proved, he urged that even if it is assumed for the sake argument

that the appellant petitioner indulged in misconduct, as per him,

the charges were not so grave and as no financial loss whatsoever

was caused to the Government, there was no occasion for

infliction of penalty of withholding of pension from the retired

public servant. In support of his contentions, Shri Sidhu placed

reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Union of India & Ors. vs. J. Ahmed reported in AIR 1979

SC 1022;

(ii) Gauri Shankar Mishra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

reported in RLR(II) 1987 Page 560;

(iii) Shri Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in RLR

1991(2) Page 700;

(iv) Iqbal Singh & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Electricity

Board, Jaipur reported in 1995(1) WLC 672; and

(v) Ratan Lal Goyal vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

reported in WLC (Raj.) UC 2003 Page 45.

6. Per contra, Shri Utkarsh Singh, Advocate associate to Shri

Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG, vehemently and fervently opposed

the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel and urged

that the disciplinary authority duly appreciated the evidence

available on record and concluded after due application of mind

that the appellant was guilty of all the three charges. The six

(5 of 7) [SAW-1440/2019]

persons, in whose favour the nurseries were sanctioned, belonged

to the same family. Only one of them owned land. As per the

eligibility criterion, none of the applicants were falling below the

poverty line and hence, the appellant committed gross misconduct

while sanctioning the nursery in their names. 18 bills to the tune

of Rs.1,06,423.75/- for planting 3,40,300 plants were presented

by six applicants and were sanctioned and the amount to the tune

of Rs.1,06,423.75/- was paid to them and hence, the charge of

causing loss to the State Government is well established. On these

grounds, learned counsel Shri Utkarsh Singh craved dismissal of

the appeal.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the

impugned order 08.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench,

the charge-sheet, enquiry officer's report as well as the impugned

order dated 10.09.2002 whereby the penalty aforesaid was

imposed on the appellant and his two co-employees Shri Ravi

Shankar Sharma and Shri Prakash Narain Gupta.

8. The main submission of Shri Sidhu to assail the impugned

orders was that as a matter of fact, no loss was caused to the

State Government by the actions of the appellant. In this regard,

on going through the material available on record, we find that the

disciplinary authority, after discussing the evidence available on

record, recorded the categoric finding that six applicants in whose

favour the nursery was granted by the Forest Officers including

the appellant, submitted the bills in the month of March, 1988

claiming that they had planted a total of 3.60 lakh saplings. This

(6 of 7) [SAW-1440/2019]

amount was duly sanctioned and was paid to the applicants. The

findings of facts recorded by the disciplinary authority clearly

establish that none of the applicants was eligible for the nursery

scheme of the Forest Department. The argument of Shri Sidhu

was mainly based on the fact that the petitioner retired on

31.07.1987 whereas the bills were submitted and were paid in the

month of March, 1988. The fact remains that ineligible persons

were sanctioned the nurseries by the appellant and these very

ineligible persons presented the bills and drew the amount

referred to supra and hence, unquetionably, the appellant's action

resulted into financial loss being caused to the State Government.

The judgments which have been relied upon by the appellant's

counsel primarily deal with the situation that no financial loss was

caused by the alleged misconduct of the Government employee

and in that circumstance, the order of withholding of pension

could not have been passed. However, in the present case, we are

duly satisfied that it is only as a consequence of the nurseries

being sanctioned by the appellant petitioner to ineligible persons

that they were facilitated in drawing the payment aforesaid

against the fictitious bills and hence, without any doubt, the

appellant was rightly held responsible for causing financial loss to

the State Government. The findings of facts recorded by the

disciplinary authority in the impugned order dated 10.09.2002

have been affirmed by the learned Single Judge by a detailed

order dated 08.08.2019 after thorough appreciation of material

available on record. The order passed by the learned Single Bench

does not suffer from any infirmity, perversity or apparent error

warranting interference in this intra court appeal.

(7 of 7) [SAW-1440/2019]

9. As a consequence, the intra court appeal is dismissed as

being devoid of merit.

10. No order as to costs.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                       (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    68-Tikam/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)