1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4889/1999. (M.L. RAJPUROHIT VS. STATE & ORS.) DATE OF ORDER : 26.02.2007. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Govind Rajpurohit for the petitioner/s. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, AGA, for the respondent/s. By this petition for writ, validity, propriety and correctness of the order dated 08.07.99 withholding 1/4th part of petitioner's pension is questioned. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 on 15.10.1988. On denial of charges, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 19.03.1996. After submission of the Enquiry Report, but before taking any decision thereupon, the petitioner stood retired from service on 30.09.1996, therefore, the matter was referred to the Governor under Rule 170 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension Rules), 1951 (as then was existing). A notice for tentative penalty dated 26.03.1998 was served upon the petitioner, however, no copy of Enquiry Report was given to him, therefore, along with a separate notice a copy of the Enquiry Report was supplied to the 2 petitioner. An action thereafter was taken against the petitioner in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension Rules), 1996 by seeking explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation pointing out various illegalities and lacunaes in holding the disciplinary proceedings. By the order impugned, the Governor decided to impose a penalty of withholding of 1/4th part of the pension for a period of three years. Hence, this petition for writ is preferred. While assailing validity and propriety of the order impugned, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the order deserves to be quashed being an unreasoned and non- speaking order. It is emphasized by counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned does not mention even the charges, findings with reasons thereon and also not deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation submitted after receiving the notice for tentative penalty. Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out various lacunaes in holding of the disciplinary proceedings. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents in general have defended the order impugned. Heard counsel for the parties. 3 The order impugned dated 08.07.89 is passed under orders of the Governor while exercising powers under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1976. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 empowers the Governor to withhold or withdraw pension, if it is found that a pecuniary loss is caused to the government. In the instant matter, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the report thereof was forwarded to the Governor. The Governor while imposing penalty should have considered the entire record including the evidence and also the explanation submitted by the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the powers under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 were exercised by the Governor to substitute the proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 on petitioner's retirement, as such the Governor was discharging the duties of disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, while imposing a penalty is required to give its own findings with reasons while holding a civil servant guilty for the charges of misconduct. The same method is required to be adopted by the Governor while exercising powers under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996. In the instant matter, from perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that no finding is given by the Governor with regard to charges of misconduct while holding the petitioner guilty. The order impugned on its face is a non-speaking and 4 unreasoned order and as such appears to have been passed without proper application of mind, therefore, deserves to be declared illegal. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 08.07.99 is quashed. Accordingly, the recovery made from pension of the petitioner is required to be refunded with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of three months from today. No order to cost. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/