Jaswant Singh Sra vs State Of Rajasthan

The present writ petition challenges an order whereby the Forest Department of State of Rajasthan imposed withholding of 10% pension for a period of three years.

The facts are that the petitioner was working as Deputy Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan; he superannuated from that position on 31.07.1997. Before his retirement, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 28.04.1997 which alleged that while working as Deputy Conservator of Forest, Churu (for the period from 03.03.1986 to 21.05.1987) the writ petitioner had sanctioned a nursery in the names of six individuals who were not eligible. The benefit was part of the policy of the Forest Department of Rajasthan to provide employment and source of livelihood to un-employed individuals i.e. essentially those living below poverty line (BPL). Apart from that, the policy also required - as condition of eligibility, that the individuals who could be tasked to plant saplings and seeds, had to own land. The allegations levelled in the charge-sheet pertain to three charges i.e. granting excess saplings: as against the permissible figure of 3 Lakhs, it was alleged that 18.65 Lakhs plants were in fact awarded. The other two charges were that none of the individuals were eligible inasmuch as they all belonged to one family and that out of them, only one owned land. Moreover, it was alleged that the applicant/so-called beneficiaries were rich and owned industries. The last charge was that the saplings were infact never planted and that the invoices, on the basis of which the State was made to pay Rs.1,06,423.75/-, were fraudulent and fake.

The writ petitioner denied the charges; an enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer held that one of the charges was partly proved. The second charge was found to be fully proved and charge No.3 was held to be not proved. The State government upon receipt of the report, issued a disagreement notice proposing that the findings in respect of part exoneration in charge No. 1, and exoneration in charge No.3. were to be reversed. The petitioner represented against the said notice; after considering his defence, the Disciplinary Authority held that all the charges alleged stood proved. On the basis of its findings, a notice proposing penalty of withholding of 10% pension for 3 years was issued; after considering the petitioner's reply, the opinion of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission was sought which concurred with the proposal of imposing penalty. Accordingly, the penalty was imposed on 10.09.2008.

It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the materials on record clearly disclose that no financial loss was caused to the State. In these circumstances, imposition of penalty of withholding of 10% pension was unwarranted and excessive. It was also argued that there was no material to prove that any excess payment was made to anyone and thus, financial loss to the department was an allegation that was never proved. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that he was posted in Churu only upto 21.05.1987 and the bills were submitted in March, 1988. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer's findings were appropriate and could not have been disagreed with. The petitioner also argued in support of the grounds urged in the petition that those to whom sanction was given did not own any cement factory. This finding is based upon a document submitted by the Department for the first time before the Disciplinary Authority. Equally, the petitioner argued that the finding with respect to the individuals not being the beneficiaries nor living below poverty line, is based entirely on conjectures.

It is evident from the above factual narration that the petitioner's arguments are three-fold (i) no financial loss was caused to the State; (ii) that the allegation with respect to ineligibility of the beneficiaries is without any basis and that as a matter of fact the bills were not cleared during the time he was posted at Churu.

So far as the first argument goes this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's submission has no merit. It is a matter of record that a sum of Rs.1.06 lakh was infact disbursed by the State on account of the claims made by the so-called beneficiaries. It is also a matter of record that as against the permissible 3 lakh saplings, the petitioner sanctioned planting of 18.65 lakh saplings i.e. more than six times the number permitted. Clearly, these saplings led to invoices being cleared - either wholly or in part by the department. This led to disbursement of the amount. Even otherwise it is stated that regardless of whether and to what extent financial loss is caused, if a Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that misconduct, as defined in the norms is proved, a finding of guilt could be warranted. Therefore, on the first ground, this Court finds no merit.

So far as the question of which individuals were given benefit and whose invoices were passed, there appears to be nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had ever examined them or even produced them in the course of the enquiry. The petitioner does not dispute having allowed the application of those six individuals. That only one of them owned land is a matter of record. Clearly, therefore, the arguments on behalf of the petitioner that the charge of granting benefit under the programme not being proved has no merit. As far as the last argument is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that this too has no merit. It is only the petitioner's argument that he was in Churu up to 21.05.1987. Though invoices per se may not have been cleared by him, the fact remains that he enrolled the ineligible individuals as beneficiaries, despite knowing that they were not eligible. In these circumstances, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority that all the charges were proved, is reasonable and do not call for any intervention.

Having regard to the above discussion and considerations of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the penalty of withholding of 10% pension for 3 years, was reasonable and fair.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. All applications too are disposed of.