JUDGMENT 1. - The prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is as under : (1) Orders dated January 15, 1987 (Annexure-1) and May 31, 1993 (Annexure-13) be quashed. (2) The respondents be directed to release entire amount of pension and gratuity of the petitioner with interest. (3) The respondents be directed to promote the petitioner as RAS (Ordinary Scale) with effect from his juniors were so promoted with all consequential benefits. (4) The respondents be directed to fix the petitioner's salary at par with Sunder Lal Nahar with all arrears. 2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner came to be appointed as Amin vide order dated November 15, 1947. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Inspector, Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar vide orders dated April 1, 1950, November 19, 1958 and January 27, 1976 and vide order dated November 26, 1981 the petitioner was promoted to the post RAS (Ordinary Scale) on ad hoc basis. The petitioner joined as DSO (Land conversion) on January 27, 1982 and posted at Churu. In the year 1987 he was posted at Tonk on the post of Assistant Collector. 3. A memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short CCA Rules) accompanied by chargesheet, statement of allegations and a list of documents were served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet before the Enquiry Officer. On attaining age of superannuation on December 31, 1988, the petitioner got retired from the service. On the same day an order came to be issued by the Special Secretary to the effect that pending conclusion of the Departmental Enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules his Death-cum-Retirment Gratuity shall stand withheld. Thereafter vide order dated January 30, 1989 the Additional Commissioner (I), Departmental Enquiry was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and it was directed that the enquiry would be initiated under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short RSR). The enquiry officer submitted report in February 1991. A show cause notice dated October 14, 1991 along with the enquiry report was given to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice. Thereafter second show cause notice was issued on May 6, 1992. In the notice a punishment of withholding of 1/10 pension for five years was proposed. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice. A show cause notice dated October 14, 1991 along with the enquiry report was given to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice. Thereafter second show cause notice was issued on May 6, 1992. In the notice a punishment of withholding of 1/10 pension for five years was proposed. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter the order dated May 31, 1993 was passed whereby punishment of withholding of 1/10 pension for five years was imposed on the petitioner. 4. As many as two charges were levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet. According to first charge the petitioner while posted as S.D.O. (Land Conversion) Churu allotted Gochar Payanttan Land on Rajgarh Churupilani Road near to Krishi Upaz Mandi Samiti and bus stand to 96 different persons. After examining 42 files it was found that the regularisations were made by the petitioner after showing old position, whereas the plots were vacant. Thus he was guilty to he remained as negligent towards his duties. The other charge was that under Rule 10(3) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agriculture Land for Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981, Gochar and Gair Mumkin Payatan Land could not be regularised for residential purposes but despite knowing this fact he regularised the said land and granted Pattas and while acting against rules he was also guilty to co-operate trespassers indirectly for misappropriation of the Government land. 5. The contention of the petitioner in the written petition is that both the charges related to interpretation of the Rules as to whether the Sub Divisional Officer (Land Conversion) had right/jurisdiction to regularise the Gochar and Gair Mumkin Payatan Land for Residential/Commercial purposes under the Rules, 1981. It is averred in the writ petition that as per Rules 1981 only authorised person can regularise the agriculture land for residential/ commercial purposes. By the Notification dated December 26, 1981 the State Government had declared all such Divisional Officers (Land Conversion) as authorised officers in cases relating to the regulairastion of unauthorised occupant and conversion of Government land, the market price of land wherever did not extend Rs. 10,000/-. As the 69 persons named in the charge sheet trespassed over various areas of land in the periphery town of Rajgarh and the Patwari and Tehsildar made report to this effect. 10,000/-. As the 69 persons named in the charge sheet trespassed over various areas of land in the periphery town of Rajgarh and the Patwari and Tehsildar made report to this effect. These 69 persons made applications to the petitioner stating that each of them were in possession of various areas of land before August 20, 1991 they had no residential houses or land for construction of houses except the land trespassed. They had enclosed the land trespassed by them with sandy doly or thorny barah. They also showed willingness to deposit the amount of premium and development fee. The petitioner thereafter relying upon the Patwari and Tehsildar's report regularised the (land) trespassed on depositing the price and development fees. In fact when the petitioner was opted as SDO (Land Conversion), Churu at that time Tehsildar Rajgarh was regularising the trespassed land, for residential and commercial purposes @ of 25 paise per square yard. The petitioner therefore complained the Collector and also sought information as to whether Gochar and Gair Mumkin Payatan land can be regularised for residential purposes or not. The Collector informed the petitioner that as such there is no prohibition in the Rules 1981. The Collector also supplied a copy of order dated January 2, 1984 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Collector Jaipur to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore in the interest of State regularised the land after receiving market price and development charges from the persons. 6. The petitioner further averred in the writ petition that he was retired on December 31, 1988 and he immediately submitted application for commutation of a fraction of pension in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981. The application was duly received by the office of Collector, Tonk on January 7, 1989 and on the same day the Collector forwarded the said application to the Deputy Secretary Personnel (K-4) informant the petitioner vide order dated March 20, 1989 that the commutation of pension as applied by him was not admissible in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 4 of the Pention Rules, 1981 as departmental enquiry is pending against him. After passing the final order dated May 31, 1993 the petitioner immediately filed representation to release his gratuity and commuted pension on June 9, 1993. After passing the final order dated May 31, 1993 the petitioner immediately filed representation to release his gratuity and commuted pension on June 9, 1993. The Deputy Secretary Department of Personnel issued order on June 23, 1993 and directed the Director Pension to release the petitioner's pension and gratuity on the basis of Order dated May 31, 1993. 7. Referring to Rule 170 of RSR, the petitioner pleaded that any part of pension can be withheld if by any irregularity Government is caused to any pecuniary loss, but both the charges are not related with the pecuniary loss caused to the Government, the pension could not be withheld. 8. The petitioner further averred that as his case was considered for regular post of RAS (Ordinary Scale) against the vacancy of 1981-82 and onwards but he was not given promotion only on account of pendency of the departmental enquiry. 9. Vide order dated June 23, 1988, the petitioner's case was also considered for regular promotion against the vacancies for the years 1987 and 1988 but the recommendations of the DPC was kept in sealed cover. Feeling aggrieved by the memorandum dated January 31, 1987, punishment order dated May 31, 1993, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 10. The respondents submitted counter to the writ petition with the averments that he was guilty of illegally regularising the gochar and payatan land and for this misconduct he was punished. The petitioner was considered by the DPC for the year 1981-82 and onwards but he was not found suitable for promotion. In the year 1987-88 he was found suitable for promotion to Junior Scale of RAS but due to pendency of departmental enquiry under rule 16 CCA Rules the recommendations were kept in sealed cover. The petitioner during the pendency of enquiry got retired from service and vide order dated May 31, 1993 he was punished. Thus there was no occasion for opening of sealed cover. It is further averred that a bare reading of definition of land shows that agriculture land in different from 'pasture' or 'payantan' land. The action of the petitioner in regularising the pasture or payatan land was clearly mala find and intentional. The petitioner regularised vacant land on the main Churu Pilani Road situated near Mandi Samiti and Bus Stand on false premises of it being already used. The action of the petitioner in regularising the pasture or payatan land was clearly mala find and intentional. The petitioner regularised vacant land on the main Churu Pilani Road situated near Mandi Samiti and Bus Stand on false premises of it being already used. The competence of the petitioner was however not disputed and it was pleaded that no charge has been levelled against the petitioner in respect of competence and it was wrong to say that some persons were in possession of various areas of land since before August 20, 1981. The petitioner did not try to find out the real and physical position of the lands at spot and regularised the land without authority of law. The petitioner was rightly found guilty of misconduct after detailed enquiry. His negligee was not supervisory. A prayer therefore was made to dismiss the writ petition. 11. I have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. 12. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, 1993(2) SCT 86 (SC) : (1993) 1 JT (SC) 236 : (1993 Lab IC 1028) indicated that an authority enjoys immunity from disciplinary proceedings with respect to matters decided by him in exercise of quasi judicial functions. The Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of Conduct Rules. Their Lordships observed that disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases - (i) Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty; (ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty; (iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant; (iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers; (v) if he had been actuated by corrupt motive however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago "though the bribe may be small yet the fault is great." 13. Their Lordships further observed as under : "However, we may add that for a mere technical violation or merely because the order is wrong and the action not falling under the above enumerated instances, disciplinary action is not warranted. Here, we may utter a word of caution. Their Lordships further observed as under : "However, we may add that for a mere technical violation or merely because the order is wrong and the action not falling under the above enumerated instances, disciplinary action is not warranted. Here, we may utter a word of caution. Each case will depend upon the facts and no absolute rule can be postulated." 14. In yet another case of Government of Tamil Nadu v. K.N. Ramamurthy, 1997(4) SCT 76 (SC) : (1997) 7 SCC 101 : (1998 LabIC 96) Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded that - "The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The Tribunal cannot also take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The function of the Court/Tribunal is one of judicial review. The parameters of judicial review has been clearly laid down. The Tribunal or the Court can interfere only if on the charges (read with imputation of particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out, or the charges framed are contrary to any law." 15. Mr. Sanjay Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an attempt to establish that the charges levelled against the petitioner do not come within the purview of misconduct as no pecuniary loss was caused to the Government and the integrity of the petitioner was not questioned. The regularisation was not barred under Rule 5 of the allotment rules, therefore in view of the parameters laid down in K.K. Dhawan's case (19993 Lab IC 1028) (supra) this Court should interfere and quash the charge sheet as well as the impugned order of punishment. At first blush the argument appeared attractive but on a close scrutiny I find that the decision arrived at by the disciplinary authority was well founded. The petitioner had a vast experience of revenue matters. He was not a novice. He came to be appointed as Amin thereafter promoted as Inspector, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and then RAS (Ordinary Scale). Thus it was expected from him to take reasonable care in passing the orders. There is yet another reason for not making interference with the impugned order. The petitioner had a vast experience of revenue matters. He was not a novice. He came to be appointed as Amin thereafter promoted as Inspector, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and then RAS (Ordinary Scale). Thus it was expected from him to take reasonable care in passing the orders. There is yet another reason for not making interference with the impugned order. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Upendra Singh, 1994(2) SCT 771 (SC) : (1994) 3 SCC 357 : (1994 AIR SCW 2777) indicated that the Court cannot go into the correctness or truth of the charges as it was the function of the disciplinary authority. This Court can only interfere if on the charges no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. In the instant case the charges levelled against the petitioner do not appear being contrary to any law. I find prima facie material to show recklessness of the petitioner in the discharge of his duties and this amounts to misconduct. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is also not shockingly disproportionate. 16. The submission about Rule 170 RSR is also fallacious. A careful study of said rule reveals that the pension can be withheld even if pecuniary loses is not caused to the Government. Misconduct of Government servant may be a ground for withholding the pension. 17. For the aforementioned reasons I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It stands dismissed accordingly without any order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******