{ 1 } S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 339/2008. (JAGDISH SINGH VS. STATE & OTHERS) DATE OF ORDER : 11.09.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. D.K. Parihar for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Tiwari for the respondents. For remaining absent from duties from 29.06.1997 to 07.10.1997, the petitioner – a constable with respondent No.3 was subjected to an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The disciplinary authority under an order dated 30.05.1998, imposed a penalty of forfeiture of past services and also commuted the period commencing from 29.06.1997 to 07.10.1997 as extraordinary leave. Being aggrieved by the order aforesaid, this petition for writ is preferred. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1951, past services of the petitioner could have not been forfeited as the period of absence was commuted by the disciplinary authority as extraordinary leave. The stand of the respondents is that the penalty of forfeiture of past services was imposed upon the petitioner after { 2 } providing adequate opportunity for defence to him and, therefore, there is no wrong with that. It is also asserted that the forfeiture of past service was made as per provisions of Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Beside the above, on count of delay and latches, the maintainability of the petition for writ is objected. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The order impugned was passed by the disciplinary authority on 30.05.1998 and this petition for writ is preferred on 16.11.2007 giving challenge to the order aforesaid. It is true that the petition suffers from an inordinate delay, however, the challenge to the order impugned is on the count of jurisdiction available to impose the penalty of the forfeiture of past service and that prima facie appears to be well founded. Beside that the petitioner shall suffer a recurring loss in payment of wages, pension etc. and also in determination of seniority. No third party right in any manner is created, thus, it shall not be proper to throw this petition for writ on the count of delay. The power to forfeit past services under sub-rule (1) of Rule 86 of the Rules of 1951 can be exercised only in the event of non-commutation of the period of absence as { 3 } extraordinary leave. In the instant matter, the disciplinary authority under the order dated 30.05.1998 itself commuted the period of absence from 29.06.1997 to 07.10.1997 as extraordinary leave, therefore, the disciplinary authority was having no power to forfeit past services. The order impugned, for the reasons stated above, is bad. On declaring the order impugned dated 30.05.1998 bad, I could have quashed the order and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for taking a decision afresh for imposing a penalty as per law, however, looking to the fact that absence of the petitioner is quite old and now remission of matter will create an unnecessary administrative burden, therefore, instead of quashing the order impugned, I considered it appropriate to modify it by substituting the penalty of forfeiture of past services by a penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The counsel for the parties are also in agreement for that. Accordingly, this petition for writ is disposed of, the order dated 30.05.1998 is modified and the penalty of forfeiture of past services is substituted by the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/