1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2932/2008 Dr.Bheem Singh versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 7th May, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. H.S.Sidhu, for the petitioner. .... To quash initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the charge sheet dated 10.2.2003, this petition for writ is preferred. The main contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the charge sheet aforesaid was issued after retirement of the petitioner and that too after exoneration of other similarly situated persons. It is also urged that the Additional Director (Gazetted), Directorate, Medical and Health Services, by his communication dated 20.6.2002 made a recommendation to drop the disciplinary action but no action accordingly was taken. Having considered the arguments advanced and from perusal of the documents placed on record, I do not find any substance in this petition for writ. The initiation of the disciplinary proceedings even after retirement from service is permissible and learned counsel for the petitioner 2 failed to point out any provision contrary thereto. It is true that there are certain checks for initiation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement but in the instant matter the initiation of the disciplinary action is within those checks. The exoneration or dropping of the disciplinary action against certain other doctors cannot be a reason to drop the disciplinary action against the petitioner also. The disciplinary authority is required to examine each and every case on its own facts. Pertinent to note here that a detailed representation was submitted by the petitioner after receiving the memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 and after considering that an inquiry officer was appointed, meaning thereby, whatever explanation given by the petitioner was considered by the competent authority and thereafter conscious decision was taken to appoint inquiry officer. Mere mentioning that the case of the petitioner was of similar nature to other doctors is not adequate. The petitioner have to prove this fact during the inquiry proceedings. I also do not find any force in the contention that a recommendation was made by the Additional Director (Gazetted) to drop the disciplinary action against the petitioner but that is not acted upon. The recommendation made by the Additional Director is only an expression of his opinion. It is having no binding force upon the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority is required to reach at an objective decision by considering all available 3 material. In the instant matter I do not find any subjectivity or oblique consideration in initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner. Thus, the petition for writ is dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.