SBCWP No.865/04. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.865/2004. Hari Dutt Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order:- December 2, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Manoj Sharma for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel. ******* BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order of penalty dated 14/8/2003 by which, he was awarded penalty of stoppage of 10% of the pension for a period of five years. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner as Executive Officer of Municipal Council Beawar acted in a bonafide manner when he was posted as Secretary Municipal Council. He entered into a compromise in a case with one Bhenru Lal. It is contended that petitioner on receiving show cause notice clarified to the Director local Bodies that he did so as per instructions of the Chairman. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid fact, there was no justification for initiation of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner particularly when against the decree passed against Bhenru Lal, an appeal was pending in the court and no loss was caused to the Municipal Council. The provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 have not SBCWP No.865/04. 2 been adhered to as petitioner was not provided opportunity of hearing to defend himself. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the departmental enquiry was followed strictly in accordance with the CCA Rules. He submitted that petitioner himself in para 8 of the writ petition submitted that the decree passed on the basis of compromise in favour of Bhenru Lal has been set-aside and the matter is pending in further appeals and no loss has been caused to the Municipal Council. It is contended that because of the wrongful act of the petitioner, Municipal Council had to suffer pecuniary loss particularly when decree passed on the basis of compromise has been set-aside. Award of penalty of stoppage of pension is perfectly just and proper. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this rejoined and submitted that penalty was excessive in that 10% pension amount ought not to have been withheld for five years because pecuniary loss was not caused to the Municipal Council. It is contended that this Court vide its order dated 1/10/2004, stayed the recovery of pension and subsequently the interim-order was confirmed vide order dated 27/2/2006. In the circumstances, impugned-order be set-aside. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, I find that impugned-order of penalty has been passed against the petitioner in a departmental proceeding initiated under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. It is alleged against the petitioner that he without there being any instruction from the Municipal Council entered into SBCWP No.865/04. 3 compromise with Bhenru Lal and got a decree passed in his favour. The suit was filed for seeking permission of the Municipal Council for raising construction in which, Bhenru Lal produced so-called patta issued from the Gram Panchayat whereas, patta was alleged to be for some other place and it was alleged that Gram Panchayat had not issued any patta for the disputed site. On that basis, defence of Bhenru Lal was not accepted by the disciplinary authority. Petitioner was not therefore justified in entering into compromise. Municipal Council thereafter filed an appeal and compromise is said to have been set-aside and further appeal was filed by Bhenru Lal was said to be pending. Coming however now to the another argument that the penalty is disproportionate, I find that argument of the petitioner shows that although as such no pecuniary loss was caused to the Municipal Council but at the same time, it is violation of the laws relating to construction. The effect of penalty has been stayed by order of this Court for quite some time. In the facts of the case, ends of justice would be met if the penalty of stoppage of 10% pension for a period of five years, is reduced to three years. Ordered accordingly. In the result, writ petition is allowed in part in the terms indicated above. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil SBCWP No.865/04. 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.772/2004. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.865/2004. Hari Dutt Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order:- December 2, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Manoj Sharma for the applicant-petitioner. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for respondents. ******* BY THE COURT:- Consequent upon disposal of the writ petition, this stay application does not survive and the same is accordingly rejected. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil