JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner approached this court with the following prayer: (i) seeking quashing of the inquiry proceedings and the punishment order dated January 5, 1996; (ii) to declare Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 ultra vires of Article 300A and 21 of the Constitution of India and the Rajasthan Pension Act, 1958. 2. During pendency of writ petition the petitioner died on October 27, 2000. An application thereafter was filed by the legal representatives for bringing them on record and they were brought on record vide order dated January 11, 2001. 3. The petitioner joined Government Service on being appointed as Assistant Employment Officer. On that post the petitioner was confirmed vide order dated May 26, 1967. Thereafter the petitioner was given regular promotion on the post of Assistant Director vide order dated November 20, 1978. On a complaint made by one Subhash Chand Soni a criminal case under Section 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had committed forgery in his High School certificate and submitted it before the Rajasthan Public Service Commission at the time of his recruitment in the year 1959-60. The petitioner however was discharged by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur vide order dated March 10, 1981. Although the petitioner claimed his date of birth as June 20, 1935 yet the State Government issued an order on May 31, 1984 declaring that the date of birth of the petitioner was June 20, 1929 and he was to be retired on June 30, 1984. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 512/84. Learned Tribunal allowed the appeal vide judgment dated June 28, 1984 and declared that the order dated May 31, 1984 was illegal. Before pronouncement of judgment by the learned Tribunal inquiry proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short 'CCA Rules') were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a memorandum dated June 15, 1984. The petitioner challenged the inquiry proceedings by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1808/84 before the High Court. 4. The petitioner challenged the inquiry proceedings by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1808/84 before the High Court. 4. In the said writ petition the petitioner canvassed the following contentions: (i) No enquiry could have been initiated against the petitioner in respect of his alleged act of giving wrong information to the RPSC or having made any interpolation in the record or having cheated the RPSC. The enquiry under the CCA Rules could be held only in respect of the acts which were committed by a person as Government servant; (ii) There was no warrant for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner on the same grounds which were before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and who discharged the petitioner in criminal case; (iii) No purpose will be served by proceeding against the petitioner at the belated stage since the petitioner had already suffered during the last two decades. 5. This Court vide order dated August 31, 1992 dismissed the writ petition. In the said order this Court observed that a Government servant who is governed by the provisions of CCA Rules, can be proceeded against in a Departmental Inquiry in respect of acts or omission which may strictly not fall Within the ambit of Rajasthan Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971. It was Further observed that the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be treated as acquittal of the petitioner. So far as the judgment of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal is concerned, this Court indicated that the Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to adjudicate on the merits of the Claim of the petitioner about his date of birth June 20, 1929. The petitioner was discharged by the Criminal Court on account of failure to make proper investigation. This Court also ruled that mere delay by itself was no ground to restrain the authorities from proceeding with the matter. This Court however directed as under: "What I wish to observe is that the enquiry should be completed expeditiously and if possible before the retirement of the petitioner so that the petitioner may not suffer mentally on account of pendency of his enquiry in his post retirement period." 6. The petitioner preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 474/1993 against the Single Bench's aforequoted order but the appeal was dismissed on October 20, 1995. 7. The petitioner preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 474/1993 against the Single Bench's aforequoted order but the appeal was dismissed on October 20, 1995. 7. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted enquiry report vide letter dated March 16, 1994 whereby the charges against the petitioner were not found established. The Disciplinary Authority vide order April 4, 1994 remanded the matter to Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer vide letter dated June 20, 1994 submitted enquiry report and found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Show Cause Notice dated January 18, 1995 along with copy of enquiry report was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice on November 25, 1994. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated January 5, 1996 imposed the punishment of withholding the full pension of the petitioner. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has assailed the punishment order as well as the entire inquiry proceedings. 8. The respondents No. 1 to 3 submitted return denying the averments pleaded in writ petition. 9. I have heard the rival submissions and weighed the material on record. 10. At the outset I propose to deal with the submissions advanced in regard to validity of Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short the 'RSR'). In Rajasthan after the integration of the various Covenanting States and the formation of the new State of Rajasthan, the Rajpramukh of Rajasthan made the RSR, in exercise of the powers vested in him under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and they came into force w.e.f. April 1, 1951. The new State enacted a law governing the service conditions of the employees of the new State of Rajasthan including those who were appointed by integration of the services of the Convenanting States. Article 309 clearly indicates that it is an enabling provision which confers upon appropriate legislative to enact law to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services. The provisions invests that President and the Governor for the Union and the States respectively to make rules regulating the retirement and the conditions of service of persons appointed...until provisions in that behalf is made by or under an act of the appropriate legislative and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provision of such Act. 11. The provisions invests that President and the Governor for the Union and the States respectively to make rules regulating the retirement and the conditions of service of persons appointed...until provisions in that behalf is made by or under an act of the appropriate legislative and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provision of such Act. 11. Rule 170 of RSR provides that if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, his pension can be withheld permanently or for a specified period or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government may be recovered from the pension. Two provisos have bee appended to this rule. Proviso (a) provides that if the department proceeding is initiated while the officer was in service, it shall be deemed to be a proceeding under Rule 170 even after retirement of the officer. Whereas proviso (b) provides that if the department proceeding was not instituted before the retirement of the officer it shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor and it shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. 12. Validity of Rule 170 of RSR has been called in question on the ground that it is a subordinate legislation and violative of Article 21 and 300A of the Constitution. According the petitioner Rule 170 is also ultravires of Sections 8 and 9 of the Rajasthan Pension Act, 1958 (for short 1958 Act'). 13. It is well settled that pension is a right to property and the Government Servant can be deprived of it in accordance with law. Pension is no longer treated as bounty payable on the sweet will or the pleasure of the Government. It is contended by the petitioner that withholding of the pension forever amounts to depriving of the life of the retired employee therefore Rule 170 of RSR is violative of Article 21 and 300A of the Constitution. It is further urged that in view of Sections 8 and 9 of the 1958 Act the pensions is not even liable to attachment or assignment. 14. After having carefully scanned Rule 170, RSR I find it relates to departmental inquiry of an officer in regard to his grave misconduct or negligence during his service tenure. It is further urged that in view of Sections 8 and 9 of the 1958 Act the pensions is not even liable to attachment or assignment. 14. After having carefully scanned Rule 170, RSR I find it relates to departmental inquiry of an officer in regard to his grave misconduct or negligence during his service tenure. This rule provides the procedure as to how the departmental inquiry which was initiated before the retirement of a Government Servant but could not be concluded till his retirement, shall be dealt with. If the Government Servant is found guilty of grave misconduct in a departmental inquiry, imposition of penalty of forfeiture of pension can not be said to be unconstitutional and Rule 170 of RSR is not in any way invalid. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in G. Sundarsan v. Union of India (1995) 4 SCC 644 , indicated that where a Government Servant had wrongly gained appointment against the post reserved for Scheduled Castes, imposition of penalty of forfeiture of pension cannot be said to be unwarranted. 15. In Union of India v. Subedar Ram Narain, (1998) 8 SCC 52 , Subedar Ram Narain was dismissed from service by the General Court Martial. Subedar filed writ petition before the High Court praying for quashing of the Court Martial proceedings. The petition was withdrawn and another writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court for the grant of pensionary benefits. The High Court came to the conclusion that as the General Court Martial had not passed an order depriving the respondent of pensionary benefits therefore he would be entitled to the same notwithstanding his dismissal from service. The Union of India assailed the said order of Delhi High Court in the appeal by Special Leave before the Apex Court on the ground that according to Regulation 113(a) of the result of punishment is that the benefit of pension or gratuity is taken away. The dismissal of Subedar Ram Narain under the Court-Martial proceedings was therefore a disqualification for getting pension or gratuity. The dismissal of Subedar Ram Narain under the Court-Martial proceedings was therefore a disqualification for getting pension or gratuity. It was contended on behalf of the Subedar Ram Narain that Regulation 113(a) was discriminatory and pension which is earned becomes the property of the person concerned and the same cannot be taken away.Rejecting the contention advanced on behalf of Subedar Ram Narain, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 14 of the judgment indicated thus : " In any case, we see no merit in the said contention. Firstly. Junior Commissioned Officer and Commissioned Officers belong to different Classes. They are not similarly situated. Moreover, pension is granted by the rules and regulations which can and do provide for the circumstances which would make a person ineligible to receive the same. Dismissal makes a junior Commissioned Officer dis entitled to receive pension or gratuity. Regulation 113(a) is not in anyway invalid." 16. On a close scrutiny of Rule 170 of RSR it appears that it was enacted to meet out that situation where the employee gets retire before the conclusion of disciplinary inquiry and punishment provided under Rule 14 of the CM Rules such as censure, withholding of increments or promotion, recovery from pay, reversion, compulsory retirement and removal from service, cannot be imposed on him. Therefore in order to penalise the retired employee for his acts of grave misconduct or negligence during his service tenure, Rule 170 was brought into existence. Rules 170 of RSR thus cannot be held ultra vires to the Constitution. 17. That takes me to the other prayer in regard to quashing of enquiry proceedings and punishment order dated January 5, 1996. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner again raised those three contentions that were advanced on behalf of the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1808/84. After this Court had already dealt with the contentions and rejected the same in the earlier order dated August 31, 1992, the petitioner can not be permitted to reagitate the same in the instant writ petition. In so far as order of punishment is concerned I find from the record that the principles of natural justice have not been violated as opportunity was afforded to the petitioner but it was the petitioner who failed to utilise it. In so far as order of punishment is concerned I find from the record that the principles of natural justice have not been violated as opportunity was afforded to the petitioner but it was the petitioner who failed to utilise it. In Nagar Palika v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal (1998) 2 SCC 400 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where the opportunity was afforded to the delinquent employee but he did not utilise it, that can not be considered as negation of the principles of natural justice. I therefore do not see any infirmity in the inquiry proceedings as well as in the impugned punishment order dated January 5, 1996. 18. Resultantly the writ petition fails and stands dismissed without any order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******