JUDGMENT 1. - Under order Ex. 22 dated May 9, 1977 a penalty of withholding of 50% pension of Dr. J.N. Purohit, the petitioner, for a period of 10 years for various charages levelled against him, was imposed by the Government. The Government further ordered that the petitioner who was placed under suspension may not be paid anything beyond the subsistence allowance already drawn by him and the period of suspension be treated as period spent on duty for purposes of pension only. The aforesaid order Ex. 22 has been challenged by the petitioner, J.N. Purohit, and the petitioner has prayed that the same may be quashed and set aside and other reliefs have also been claimed. 2. The petitioner, Dr. Purohit, entered the Rajasthan Government service in the year 1951 as Civil Assistant Surgeon Class II. On September 10, 1959 while he was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon he submitted a conditional resignation but the same was not accepted and an order dated May 26, 1960 was passed suspending the petitioner from the services with retrospective effect from August 11, 1959 and a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, the CCA Rules) was initiated against the petitioner. As many as 11 charges were framed against the petitioner and under order dated May 7, 1965 the petitioner was served and the petitioner was informed that he has been dismissed vide order dated February 16/17, 1965. When the review petition before the Governor filed by the petitioner was not heard, he filed a civil writ petition (No. 541/1968) in this Court at Jodhpur on July 1, i968. The same was allowed by P.N. Singhal, J. as his Lordship then was under his judgment dated November 5, 1971 and the order dated February 16/17, 1965 was quashed. However, it was left open for the Disciplinary Authority to order fresh inquiry in accordance with law. 3. The same was allowed by P.N. Singhal, J. as his Lordship then was under his judgment dated November 5, 1971 and the order dated February 16/17, 1965 was quashed. However, it was left open for the Disciplinary Authority to order fresh inquiry in accordance with law. 3. A fresh inquiry into the charges of misconduct framed earlier against the petitioner was decided to be held by the Disciplinary Authority and the State Government passed an order dated September 6, 1972 after about 10 months of the decision of this court in which it was mentioned that the petitioner shall be placed under suspension and be deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from the date of original order of dismissal viz., February 17, 1965 and he shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. The inquiry was transferred by the Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries to the Additional Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, who held the inquiry and submitted his inquiry report Ex. 20 dated November 10, 1975 to the Disciplinary Authority in which some of the charges/allegations were not held to be established against the petitioner whereas some charges were held to be made out which in the opinion of the Additional Commissioner appear to be resultant of a particular attitude adopted by him towards his working conditions and the men and matters around him. After receipt of the report of the Additional Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries a notice to show cause under Article 311(2) of the Constitution was served upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority provisionally proposing penalty of removal from Government Service. The petitioner submitted his reply Ex. 21. The Disciplinary Authority consulted the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Before the advice of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission could reach the petitioner Dr. Purohit was retired on attaining the age of superannuation from Government Service with effect from May 31, 1976 (after-noon) vide Government order F. 1(24)(19)MPH/58 Gr. II dated May 31, 1976. The Commission suggested that 50% of the pension of Dr. J.N. Purohit may be with-held for a period of 10 years under Rule 170 of the RSR. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty which has been stated in the beginning of this order. 4. Dr. Purohit filed this writ petition challenging the order Ex. 22 as well as the order Ex. 2 dated September 6, 1972 and the show cause notice Ex. 19. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty which has been stated in the beginning of this order. 4. Dr. Purohit filed this writ petition challenging the order Ex. 22 as well as the order Ex. 2 dated September 6, 1972 and the show cause notice Ex. 19. 5. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents. No reply to the writ petition has been filed and only reply to the stay application has been filed in which it has been stated that the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner was sent to the Commission for advice and the advice of the Commission was received on February 19, 1977 and since the allegations were of serious nature, but in view of Dr. Purohit's retirement from Government Service, the punishment of removal from Government Service cannot be imposed on him. The Commission, therefore, suggested that 50 per cent pension of the petitioner be with-held for a period of 10 years under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. After considering the report given by the Inquiry Officer, advice of the Commission along with the relevant records of the case the Governor while accepting the advice of the Commission, has been pleased to impose the penalty of withholding 50 per cent pension of the petitioner for a period of 10 years for the aforesaid charges levelled against him. 6. The first contention of Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not have been placed under suspension retrospectively. Under judgment of this court dated November 5, 1971 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 541/1968 (Ex. 1) the order of dismissal passed earlier has been set aside, though it had been left open for the Disciplinary Authority to order fresh inquiry in accordance with law. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it w as necessary to have passed an order of suspension afresh. The order was only passed on September 6, 1972 after about 10 months of the aforesaid judgment of this Court and under it also the petitioner was not placed under suspension. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. The order was only passed on September 6, 1972 after about 10 months of the aforesaid judgment of this Court and under it also the petitioner was not placed under suspension. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. Under Rule 13(4) of the CCA Rules where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from a service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence or by a decision of a court of law and the disciplinary authority on a consideration of the, circumstances of the case decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government Servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. Therefore, no fresh orders of suspension in the aforesaid case are necessary and a Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal. In the instant case the original order of dismissal was effective from February 17, 1965 and under Ex. 2 dated September 6, 1972 the appointing authority, Governor, in exercise of its powers conferred by Rule 13(4) of the CCA Rules ordered that the petitioner shall be placed under suspension and be deemed to have been placed under suspensions with effect from the date of original order of dismissal viz., February 17, 1965 and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders and not from the date penalty was imposed on him. Therefore, in my opinion order Ex. 2 cannot be said to be open to challenge and cannot be quashed. 7. The next contention of Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner is that reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings was not afforded to the petitioner in as much as the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance. In this connection Mr. Calla has referred to para No. 9 of the writ petition. 7. The next contention of Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner is that reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings was not afforded to the petitioner in as much as the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance. In this connection Mr. Calla has referred to para No. 9 of the writ petition. In the aforesaid para it has been stated that the amount of subsistence allowance which was fixed in the case of the petitioner in 1965 was never revised as admissible under the rules, nay, from July 1874 it was also with held till March 1975 and the subsistence allowance of July 1974 to December 1974 was actually paid in March 1975 and it was again with held for the period from January 1, 1975 to August 21, 1975. It is further stated in para No. 9 at page 7 that the petitioner vide letter dated August 22, 1976 pointed out to the Additional Commissioner that the subsistence allowance was not being paid to him and that in case his letters are not properly entertained and replied it will be difficult for him to co-operate with the enquiry proceedings. Learned counsel in this connection has made a reference to Ex. 13 and at page 4 of it at the bottom it has been stated that as defined by Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court in many cases the subsistence allowance is not paid as a mercy from the employer but as a maintenance allowance, which at no stage can be stopped. The subsistence allowance has never been revised since August 1974 and it has been totally stopped without giving any notice or information to the petitioner. From the aforesaid assertions and statement of facts contained in the writ petition it can be said that the petitioner did press for payment of subsistence allowance and further that subsistence allowance was not paid to him timely. But it cannot be said that it was not paid at all. The arrears of subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner and he did take part in the departmental enquiry. But it cannot be said that it was not paid at all. The arrears of subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner and he did take part in the departmental enquiry. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that in case subsistence allowance is not paid to the suspended Government servant, it cannot be said that reasonable opportunity to defend himself has been afforded to him, has placed reliance on Ghanshyam Das Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1971) 2 SLR 239 . In that case representations were made by the forest ranger who was suspended for certain allegations of dereliction of duties and against whom a departmental enquiry was pending, that he was not being paid subsistence allowance and that he was unable to attend before the Enquiry Officer. But still the inquiry was held exparte, recommendations were made to the Disciplinary Authority, who accepted the recommendations and required the forest ranger to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The request of the employee to grant personal hearing was rejected and the order of dismissal from service was passed. In the context of the facts of that case their Lordships observed that: "If the grievance raised before us by the counsel on behalf of the appellant that he was not paid the subsistence allowance and on that account he was unable to make himself present before the Enquiry Officer is true, we must hold that the proceeding before the Enquiry Officer would be vitiated and the final order of the appointing authority cannot be sustained. It will therefore be clear that the above observations made in the context of the facts of that case, the representation for payment of subsistence allowance was not considered, exparte inquiry was made, the request for personal hearing was rejected after issue of show cause notice. Therefore, in my opinion that case has no application to the facts of the instant case. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that in all cases in which subsistence allowance or part of it was not paid or its payment was delayed, it will amount to denial of reasonable opportunity of defending himself to a Government servant. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that in all cases in which subsistence allowance or part of it was not paid or its payment was delayed, it will amount to denial of reasonable opportunity of defending himself to a Government servant. In the instant case even as per the averment of the writ petition the payment of the subsistence allowance was only delayed and it was not a case where the same was not paid at all or as a result of failure to pay the subsistence allowance the petitioner could not take part in the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was paid subsistence allowance, may be that his payment might have been delayed but he took part in the disciplinary proceedings. A look at Annexure 21 reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice will show that it was not even stated therein on behalf of the petitioner that he was not paid the subsistence allowance. Only that its payment was delayed and it cannot be said that reasonable opportunity of defending himself was denied to him. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it can not be said that the subsistence allowance was not paid and the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard to defend himself. 8. Yet another contention of Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner is that after receiving show cause notice in which the decision of the appointing authority to inflict the penalty of dismissal from service was conveyed to the petitioner, the petitioner filed his reply but the same was not considered by the appointing authority before the order Ex. 22 was passed against him. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was incumbent upon the appointing authority to have considered the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice served on him and the failure to do so, vitiates the order Ex. 22. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is violation of Rule 16(9) and 16(10) of the CCA. Rules. In support of his contention Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on R.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana (1972) 7 SLR 845 and Phool Chand v. The State of Raj as than and Ors. WLN 1980 (UC) page 311 . Rules. In support of his contention Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on R.D. Gupta v. State of Haryana (1972) 7 SLR 845 and Phool Chand v. The State of Raj as than and Ors. WLN 1980 (UC) page 311 . It is further contended by him that it must have appeared from the order Ex. 22 itself that the various contentions raised by the petitioner in his reply Ex. 21 were considered by the appointing authority and thereafter Ex. 22 was passed. It must be a speaking order. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Siemana Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India and Anr., AIR 1976 SC 1785 . Under Rule 16(9) CCA Rules in case the Disciplinary Authority is not the enquiring authority it has to consider the record of inquiry and record its own findings on each charge. Under Rule 16(10)(i) of the CCA Rules if the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on the charges is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (iv) to (vii) of Rule 14 should be imposed, it shall furnish to the Government servant a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority a statement of is finding together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the finding of the Inquiring Authority and give him a notice stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make on the proposed penalty, provided that such representation shall be based only on the evidence adduced during the enquiry. Again under Rule 16(10)(ii) of the CCA Rules in every case in which it is necessary to consult the Commission the record of the Inquiry together with a copy of the notice given under Clause (i) and the representation made in response to such notice if any shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advice, and on receipt of the advice of the Commission, the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation if any made by Government servant and the advice given by the Commission and determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on the Government Servant and pass appropriate orders in the case. It will therefore be clear from the perusal of the above referred to rules that in case the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, it has to consider the record of the inquiry and record its finding on each charge, and in case where consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission is necessary the record of the inquiry together with the copy of the notice given under Clause (i) and the representation made in response to such notice, shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advice and the Disciplinary Authority has further to consider the representation if any made by the delinquent Government Servant as well as the advice of the Commission and thereafter determine what penalty should be imposed on the Government Servant and pass appropriate orders. In the instant case the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a bare look at Ex. 22 will make it clear that the representation of Dr. Purohit was not sent to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and even after receipt of the representation Ex. 21 of the petitioner and before imposing the penalty the appointing authority did not consider it. Thus there is a clear violation of Rule 16(10)(ii) of the CCA Rules. In this connection he has referred to Ex. 22 internal page 5 at page 219 of the paper book. It is mentioned therein that accordingly a show cause notice to Dr. Purohit was issued vide memorandum of dated April 5, 1976. This show cause notice was duly received by Dr. Purohit. Reply to the show cause notice was not received from Dr. Purohit. 22 internal page 5 at page 219 of the paper book. It is mentioned therein that accordingly a show cause notice to Dr. Purohit was issued vide memorandum of dated April 5, 1976. This show cause notice was duly received by Dr. Purohit. Reply to the show cause notice was not received from Dr. Purohit. The case along with the record was referred to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the advice of the Commission under Rule 16(10)(ii)(e) of the CCA Rules vide latter dated May 22, 1976 and a request was made to tender the advice by May 28, 1976 as Dr. Purohit was die to retire on May 31, 1976. The advice of the Commission could not reach by the end of May, 1976 and Dr. Purohit was retired on attaining the age of superannuation from the Government Service with effect from May 31, 1976 (after noon). It is further mentioned that reply to the show cause notice was also submitted by Dr. Purohit and it was also sent to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Advice of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission was received vide latter dated February 19,1977. The Commission have advised that the charges which have been proved against Dr. Purohit are of serious nature but in view of Dr. Purohit's retirement from Government Service the punishment of removal from service cannot be imposed on Dr. Purohit. The Commission therefore suggested that 50% of pension of Dr. Purohit be with held for a period of 10 years under Rule 170 of the RSR. It can therefore be said that though the petitioner came to be retired from Government Service with effect from May 31, 1976 (after noon) vide Government order dated May 31, 1976, the representation of the petitioner was not forwarded to the Commission but there after it was forwarded to the Commission and the advice of the Commission was received. It can therefore, be said that the record including the representation of the petitioner Ex. 21 was sent to the Commission for advice and there has been compliance with Rule 16(10)(ii)(a) of the CCA Rules. But so far as Rule 16(10)(ii)(b) is concerned, it cannot be said from the bare perusal of Ex. 22 that there has been compliance of it. 21 was sent to the Commission for advice and there has been compliance with Rule 16(10)(ii)(a) of the CCA Rules. But so far as Rule 16(10)(ii)(b) is concerned, it cannot be said from the bare perusal of Ex. 22 that there has been compliance of it. As already stated earlier, on receipt of the advice of the Commission the Disciplinary Authority is bound to consider the representation made by the petitioner and thereafter determine what penalty should be imposed on the Government Servant and pass appropriate order in the case. In the absence of the writ petition it cannot be said that after receipt of the advice of the Commission the representation of the petitioner Ex. 21 also was considered by the appointing authority. There is no such mention in Ex. 22 and therefore it can be said that there has been non-compliance with Rule 16(10)(ii)(b) of the CCA Rules. It is a case of non-application of mind to the representation of the petitioner Ex. 21 after receipt of the advice of the Commission and before the penalty was imposed on the petitioner. It can therefore be said that Rule 16(10)(ii)(b) of the CCA Rules has been contravened. The determination of the penalty without considering the representation made by the Government Servant in pursuance to a notice under Rule 16(10)(ii((b) renders the penalty illegal as it cannot be said as to what would have been the result if the representation of the delinquent would have been considered after receipt of the advice of the Commission. 9. The word 'consideration' has been a subject of interpretation by the courts. In case of Phool Chand (supra) this Court considered the statutory obligation imposed on the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 16(10)(ii)(b) of the CCA Rules to consider the representation submitted by the Government Servant in reply to the show cause notice and held that: "In my opinion the interpretation placed by this Court on the word 'consider' in Kuldeep Singh's case (supra) can equally he applied to the said word contained in Rule 16(10)(ii)(b) of the Rules. This would mean that the aforesaid provisions impose on the Disciplinary Authority a duty to make an objective examination of the submissions contained in the representation submitted by the Government Servant in reply to the show cause notice. This would mean that the aforesaid provisions impose on the Disciplinary Authority a duty to make an objective examination of the submissions contained in the representation submitted by the Government Servant in reply to the show cause notice. An objective examination of the submissions would imply that the the Disciplinary Authority must record its reasons for rejecting the said submission. In other words Rule 16(10)(ii)(b) of the Rules postulates that the Disciplinary Authority must record its reasons for rejecting the submissions made by a Government in his representation. The learned Judge took into consideration that the order of Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty did not show that the various submissions contained in the representation have been given due consideration by it held that the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the representation submitted by the delinquent officer in reply to the show cause notice and as such the order imposing penal was passed in contravention of the provisions of Rule 16(10)(ii)(b) of the CCA Rules. If Ex. 22 is looked alongwith Ex. 21 the representation of Dr. Purohit in pursuance to the show cause notice to him, it will be clear that various contentions raised by Dr. Purohit in his representation Ex. 21 have not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority in the order Ex. 22. The Ex. 21 runs in as many as 34 typed pages and Dr. Purohit in the said representation raised several grounds based upon the evidence tendered during the course of inquiry for sympathetic consideration of the Disciplinary Authority. In Ex. 22 the Disciplinary Authority reproduced various charges numbering 11 and thereafter at page 5 observed that reply to the show cause notice dated April 5, 1976 has not been received from Dr. Purohit and the case along with record was referred to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the advice of the Commission under Rule 16(10)(ii)(e) of the CCA Rules which could not be received in time and in the meanwhile Dr. Purohit attained the age of superannuate and retired from the Government service with effect from May 31, 1976 (after noon). Then in the next para of the order Ex. 22 it has been stated that the reply to the show cause notice was also submitted by Dr. Purohit and was sent to the RPSC for advice which was received vide letter dated February 19, 1977. Then in the next para of the order Ex. 22 it has been stated that the reply to the show cause notice was also submitted by Dr. Purohit and was sent to the RPSC for advice which was received vide letter dated February 19, 1977. Then it refers to the advice of the Commission. There is no reference that the representation of Dr. Purohit at that point of time was considered by the Disciplinary Authority. There is no mention that various contentions raised by Dr. Purohit in the representation made by him were at all considered. Thus, what to say to objective examination of the representation to the show cause notice made by Dr. Purohit, the representation was not at all considered as required under Rule 16(10)(ii)(b) of the CCA Rules, and this itself renders the order Ex. 22 illegal. 10. Rule 14 of the CCA Rules gives nature of penalties which can be imposed on a Government servant for misconduct. They are mentioned in Clauses (i) to (vii) of that Rule. So far as the penalties specified in Clauses (iv) to (vii) of Rule 14 are concerned they are major penalties and the penalties in Clauses (i) to (iii) are minor penalties. There is no mention in any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (vii) of Rule 14 of the CCA Rules of a penalty of with holding or withdrawing pension or any part of it whether permanently or for specified period. On the report of the inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority provisionally decided and proposed to impose a penalty of dismissal from service. A show cause notice was issued to Dr. Purohit as to why the proposed penalty may not be imposed upon him. Dr. Purohit submitted his representation Ex. 2. Thereafter, order Ex. 22 was passed under which the penalty of with holding 50 per cent pension for a period of 10 years for the charges levelled against Dr. Purohit and found proved was imposed. It was also ordered that the Governor has further been pleased to order that Dr. Purohit who was placed under suspension may not be paid anything beyond the subsistence allowance already drawn by him and the period of suspension will be treated as period spent on duty for the purpose of pension only. Dr. Purohit attained the age of superannuation before the order Ex. Purohit who was placed under suspension may not be paid anything beyond the subsistence allowance already drawn by him and the period of suspension will be treated as period spent on duty for the purpose of pension only. Dr. Purohit attained the age of superannuation before the order Ex. 22 came to be made against him though the inquiry had been completed before he reached the age of superannuation and before a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner provisionally proposing the infliction of the penalty of removal from service. Rule 170 of RSR is as under: "170. Purohit attained the age of superannuation before the order Ex. 22 came to be made against him though the inquiry had been completed before he reached the age of superannuation and before a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner provisionally proposing the infliction of the penalty of removal from service. Rule 170 of RSR is as under: "170. Recoveries of losses from the pension : The Governor further reserves to himself the right of with holding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding the petitioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement- (a) provided that such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the office was in service, whether before his retirement ordering his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the Officer, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued in the same manner as if the Officer had continued in service; (b) such department proceeding, if not instituted while the Officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment: (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Officer during his service; (c) no such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re employment, shall be the instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and (d) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed. It is not disputed that no notice was given to the petitioner under Rule 170 of the RSR to show cause as to why his pension or any part of it for a period of 10 years be not with-held. Under the proviso (a) to Rule 170 of the RSR departmental proceeding if instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer be deemed to be proceeding under Rule 170 and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service. There is a clarification issued by the Government which appears below proviso (e) to Rule 170 of the RSR. It was made on a question being raised whether in respect of an officer whose case falls within the preview of proviso (e) of Rule 170 of the RSR and proceedings against whom were instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, order for withdrawal or with-holding of pension can be passed by the subordinate authority an the conclusion of the proceedings, or the authority should refer the case to the Governor for final orders. The matter has been considered and decision was taken as under: "the matter has been considered and it is clarified that the function of the disciplinary Authority in respect of departmental proceedings referred to in Rule 170 is only to reach a finding on the charges and to submit a report recording its finding to the Government. It is then for the Government to consider the findings and take a final decision under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules in the light of the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the Government will serve the person concerned with a show-cause notice specified the action proposed to be taken under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and the person concerned will be required to submit his reply to the show cause notice within such time as may be specified by the Government. The Government will consider the reply and consult the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. If as a result of such consultation with the Commission; it is a decided to pass an order under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, necessary orders will be issued in the name of the petitioner. The Government will consider the reply and consult the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. If as a result of such consultation with the Commission; it is a decided to pass an order under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, necessary orders will be issued in the name of the petitioner. Though, the clarification was made in respect of an officer whose cafe fell within purview of the provisions to Rule 170, the RSR and the proceedings against whom were instituted by the Governor but it can be said that in case where the Disciplinary Authority proposes and if it is decided to take action under Rule 170 the Government has to serve the person concerned a show cause notice of the proposed action requiring him to submit his reply with in such time as may be specified by the government. It has already been stated that with-holding of pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a specified period is not one of the penalties specified in Rule 14 of the CCA Rules. One of the penalties specified in Clause (iv) of Rule 14 of the CCA Rules is reduction to a lower service or in case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules. Even if the penalty imposed in this case may fall in Clause (iv) of the Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, notice to show cause before inflicting such penalty is missing. Therefore, before an order under r. 170 of the RSR can be passed against a Government servant when he is found guilty of grave misconduct in a departmental or judicial proceedings, it is necessary to issue show cause notice under Rule 170 of the RSR to the Government Servant and an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken must be given to him and unless it is done, no order under Rule 170 of the RSR can be made. In the instant case admittedly no notice for the proposed action under Rule 170 of the RSR was given to Dr. Purohit and he was not called upon to show cause against the proposed action. Thus, the order Ex. 22 cannot be said to be in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order Ex. 22 is quashed. Purohit and he was not called upon to show cause against the proposed action. Thus, the order Ex. 22 cannot be said to be in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order Ex. 22 is quashed. This Court under its order dated March 9, 1978 had ordered that the petitioner shall be paid half of the pension with effect from June 1976 on wards till the disposal of the writ petition. The balance of the amount of pension shall be paid to the petitioner unless the Government decides to take action under Rule 170 of the RSR. Taking into consideration that Dr. Purohit has been in suspension since 1959 and again since February 15/16, 1965, the Government should consider seriously the propriety of taking any further action against Dr. Purohit. Costs made easy.Writ allowed. *******