JUDGMENT 1. - Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner entered the service of the Government of Rajasthan on December 12, 1943 and coatinued uptil the age of superannuation i.e. January 31, 1982. The petitioner was holding the post of Tehsildar, Fatehpur District Sikar at the time of his retirement. According to the petitioner, his service record had been neat and clean throughout his service period except an inquiry which was held by serving a chargesheet dated Nov. 17, 1971 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The petitioner was given 3 charges, firstly, for making a wrong entry in Mutation No. 262 of Village Nimola. According to the petitioner he made this entry on April 24, 1975, on being entered the same by Revenue Inspector Shri Babu Lal. The petitioner had simply entered the mutation according to the entry made by Shri Babu Lal. Secondly, the petitioner was charged with regard to the mutation No. 264 having been done on April 24, 1975 upholding the entries made by the Revenue Inspector Babu Lal. In this charge it was also mentioned that the said village Nimola did not fall within the jurisdiction of the petitioner at that time. Thirdly, the petitioner was charged with regard to the same mutation No. 265 of village Nimola on the same day i.e. April 24, 1975 upholding the entry made by the Revenue Inspector Babu Lal. In the third charge it was further mentioned that the petitioner had certified the above mutation in an illegal manner as the area was not within the jurisdiction of the petitioner. The above charges were furnished to the petitioner vide Annexure I dated November 17, 1977. 2. The petitioner immediately died reply of the said chargesheet in which be emphatically denied all the charges levelled against him and stated that village Nimola was situated under his jurisdiction as Naib Tehsildar and not only the work of mutation but the entire revenue work of village Nimola had been looked after by the petitioner at the relevant time. The village Nimola was situated in sub-Tehsil, Indergarh, which was under the jurisdiction of the petitioner. The village Nimola was situated in sub-Tehsil, Indergarh, which was under the jurisdiction of the petitioner. The petitioner had all the powers of registration, supply of essential commodities to the villagers and all other duties assigned to the Tehsildar were being performed by the petitioner and the Village Nimola was very much under the jurisdiction of the petitioner. It was further submitted in the reply that even if it may be assumed for a moment that the order passed by the petitioner was not a legal order, then the same could have been challenged in appeal under the Tenancy Act. The petitioner had thus submitted that the orders passed by the petitioner at the relevant time, were judicial orders and the same could have been challenged by way of appeal under the Tensney Act. The petitioner had passed the orders of mutation in good faith and without any malice. The petitioner retired having attained the age of superannuation on January 31, 1981 before the conclusion of the said inquiry. After the retirement of the petitioner a show cause notice was give a to the petitioner vide order dated April 27, 1933 (Annexure 3) stating therein to show cause why one-fourth part of his pension for 5 years should not be stopped by way of punishment. 3. The case of the petitioner further is that the Inquiry Officer had clearly held that the petitioner had committed an illegality but that was not malalide and the illegality had been committed in good faith. The petitioner again submitted a reply to the show cause notice that he had not committed any illegality as in fact village Nimola fell within his jurisdiction at the relevant time and this fact had been totally ignored by the Revenue Officer. It was further submitted in the reply that the show cause notice was totally illegal as the petitioner had retired from service on January 31, 1982 and Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 951 under which the said show cause notice was issued was not applicable in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner had also submitted that the pension of an employee could not he withheld,if he had not committed any mistake by which the Government may have sustained any monetory loss. However, the petitioner was shocked to receive a letter dated February 2, 1984, issued under the signatures of Deputy Secretary (Revenue) (Gr. The petitioner had also submitted that the pension of an employee could not he withheld,if he had not committed any mistake by which the Government may have sustained any monetory loss. However, the petitioner was shocked to receive a letter dated February 2, 1984, issued under the signatures of Deputy Secretary (Revenue) (Gr. 1) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by which one-fourth part of the pension of the petitioner had been ordered to be withheld for 5 years as punishment under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The petitioner had received his full pension till the filing of the writ petition and the order dated February 2, 19,x4, (Annexure 5) had not been given effect to till the filing of the writ petition. 4. The petitioner in the above circumstances aggrieved against the order Annexure 5 dated February 2, 1984, filed the present writ petition on February 16, 1984. 5. The respondents in reply to the writ petition submitted that the departmental inquiry against the petitioner was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and the inquiry was conducted in presence of the petitioner. The petitioner has been given opporturity of hearing and there was no violation of any principles of natural justice. From the report of the inquiry officer it was clear that the petitioner committed gross negligence and charges were held established against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that the provisions of Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules are applicable only in cases where there is a monetary loss to Government was not tenable. It has been further submitted in the reply that it was provisionally concluded on the basis of the inquiry report that the petitioner was guilty of gross negligence and an action under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules was to be taken against the petitioner and as such the petitioner was served with a show cause notice of proposed penalty. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice. The Government after perusing the relevant record, the reply to show cause notice and after consulting Rajasthan Public Service Commission ordered to withhold one-fourth pension of the petitioner for 5 years. The order dated February 2, 1984, was legal and proper and the petitioner has no right to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 6. The Government after perusing the relevant record, the reply to show cause notice and after consulting Rajasthan Public Service Commission ordered to withhold one-fourth pension of the petitioner for 5 years. The order dated February 2, 1984, was legal and proper and the petitioner has no right to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 6. We have heard Mr. Soni for the petitioner and Mr. Rathore learned Deputy Government Advocate on behalf of the State. 7. The facts of this case almost remained undi,puted. A perusal of Annexure I which makes a mention of the charges clearly go to show that the allegation levelled against the petitioner was that village Nimola was not within the territorial jurisdiction of the petitioner and inspite of that the petitioner certified and sanctioned m stations in the revenue records. It is important to note that the Inquiry Officer clearly recorded a finding that there was no mala fide intention of the petitioner and he did not record a finding that village Nimola did not fall within the jurisdiction of the petitioner while working as Naib Tehsildar at the relevant time. On the contract, the Inquiry Officer recorded a finding that under section 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 1955, the Assistant Collector was authorised to sanction khatedari. Such action was beyond the jurisdiction of the Naib Tehsildar and on this account the action taken by the petitioner was beyond his jurisdiction. Thus, it is very clear that the Inquiry Officer as well as the State Government both committed an error apparent on the face of record in holding the petitioner guilty of a charge which was never levelled against the petitioner. As already mentioned above in the charges levelled against the petitioner it was allowed that the action of the petitioner was without jurisdiction because village Nimola did not fail within the jurisdiction of the petitioner. It was no where stated in the charge that the Assistant Collector was alone authorised under Section 19 of the Tenancy Act regarding entries of Khatedari and the petitioner being a Naib Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to pass any orders regarding mutation. So far as the report of the inquiry officer Annexure 3 as well as the order of the State Government Annexure 5 dated February 2. 1984. So far as the report of the inquiry officer Annexure 3 as well as the order of the State Government Annexure 5 dated February 2. 1984. it clearly makes a mention that the petitioner working as Naib Tehsildar passed orders bayond his jurisdiction as Assistant Collector alone was competent to pass orders under Section 19 of the Tenancy Act. The petitioner was thus wrongly punished for a charge which was never levelled against him. 8. Apart from the above illegality, we are clearly of the view that there was no misconduct committed by the petitioner in passing the orders of mutation so as to contemplate any action under Rule 17J of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The Inquiry Officer has clearly recorded a finding that there was no mala fide on the part of the petitioner and admittedly no party has come forward to show that such entry affected the legal rights of any person. The aggrieved party, if any, could have gone in appeal against the impugned orders of mutation passed by the petitioner while working as Naib Tehsildar. It is not the case even of the State Government that by the impugned action of the petitioner, the State Government has been put to any monetary loss. Even if for arguments sake it may be assumed that the orders of mutation passed by the petitioner were without jurisdiction, such orders could have been challenged in appeal and in such kind of matter there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner so as to award a drastic penalty of withholding of one-fourth pension of the petitioner for 5 years. In Union of India v. J. Ahmed : 1979 SLJ 308 , their Lordships considered the scope of the term 'misconduct' under All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 1955. Hon'ble Supreme Court has quoted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial dictionary which runs as under : "Misconduct" means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment or innocent mistake, did not constitute such misconduct." Thus, we are clearly of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner so as to punish him by making any forfeiture of his pension. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the order Annexure 5 dated February 2. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the order Annexure 5 dated February 2. 1984, is quashed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to his full pension and in case one-fourth pension of the petitioner has been deducted for any period then the same would be released and paid to the petitioner immediately within one month. The petitioner will also be entitled to Rs. 500/- as costs of this petition.Petition allowed with cost. *******