JUDGMENT 1. - Vijay Pal Singh (since deceased) now represented by his heirs and legal representatives filed this special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5th of July, 1997 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3146/1993. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner appellant (since deceased) was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to filing of this special appeal are that the petitioner appellant (since deceased) was appointed as Teacher Gr. III in Panchayat Samiti, Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu under the order dated 30th of August, 1965 of the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu. He was placed under suspension under the order dated 11th March, 1985 of the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Navalgarh, on the allegation that he contested the general election of the State Legislative Assembly, 1985 as an independent candidate from Navalgarh constituency without having obtained the permission from the competent authority. 3. The suspension was order in contemplation on the departmental enquiry as what it comes out from the order (Annexure-2), annexed to the writ petition. Charge sheet was served upon him under memorandum dated 8th of April, 1985. (Annexure-3) to the writ petition, under Rule 7 of the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad (Punishment and Appeal) Service Rules, 1959 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Rules, 1959'). He submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet vide its reply dated 23rd of April, 1985. It is averred that he had filed nomination paper at the aforesaid general assembly election In ignorance of the requirement of the Rules, 1959 of seeking prior permission of the competent authority. Immediately when he came to know as regards to the said requirement of the Rules; 1959, he straightway rushed to the concerned Returning Officer at 4.00 PM. on .11th of February, 1985 in order to withdraw his nomination paper. But by that time the withdrawal time had expired. He did not engage any electioneer in return. Rs. 250/- were shown by him towards the election expenses. In these facts and circumstances, he had requested that the enquiry proceedings against him be dropped. 4. The grievance has been made that he was not allowed to led evidence in his defence by the Standing Committee. He did not engage any electioneer in return. Rs. 250/- were shown by him towards the election expenses. In these facts and circumstances, he had requested that the enquiry proceedings against him be dropped. 4. The grievance has been made that he was not allowed to led evidence in his defence by the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee passed the order on 20th of July, 1985 dismissing him from the services. The grievance has been made in the writ petition that prior approval of the competent authority before dismissing him from services was not obtained by this Standing Committee nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him against the proposed major penalty. It is further grievance that he was not called upon to show cause in the form of representation against the proposed action of inflicting a major penalty of dismissal from the services. There was a period of 50 days only left for him to complete 20 years of pensionable services, but mercilessly and arbitrarily he was dismissed from the services. He preferred an appeal under Section 89(6)(b) of the Act, 1959 against the order dated 10th of July, 1985 passed by the Panchayat Samiti dismissing him from the services. The appeal came to be dismissed on 20th of November, 1993 on the ground of delay in filing thereof. The appellant preferred writ petition. The writ was contested by the respondents. 5. In para No. 19 of the reply to the writ petition the respondents stated "it was a sheer bona fide ignorance of law, he ought to have brought the facts to the knowledge with apologies. He did not do so." He submitted a false statement of expenses incurred in the election. Without publicity by posters or by arranging vehicles for election campaign he would not have got 332 votes. 6. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge under the impugned order. Thus, this special appeal. 7. Shri Ajay Rastogi, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that it is not such a grave misconduct of the deceased delinquent employee so as to warrant his dismissal from the services. It is not a case of any misappropriation or embezzlement of the Government money nor it is a case of any fraud or insubordination or disobedience. Shri Rastogi urged that the deceased was Teacher Gr. It is not a case of any misappropriation or embezzlement of the Government money nor it is a case of any fraud or insubordination or disobedience. Shri Rastogi urged that the deceased was Teacher Gr. III and was posted at village and in the ignorance of the service conduct rules he has filed the nomination and contested the election for State Legislative Assembly. In his submission the respondents would have accepted it to be a sheer bona fide ignorance of law in case the deceased had brought all the facts to the knowledge with apologies. It was not taken to be a case of apologies for the reason that he alleged to have submitted a false statement of incurring of expenses in the election. An inference has been drawn that without publicity by posters and by arranging vehicles for election campaign he would not have got 332 votes. These findings, in his submission, are based on conjectures and surmises. No material has been produced in support of these presumptions, assumptions and acceptance of the respondents in the reply. 8. Shri K.N. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, supported the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. It is submitted that a full-fledged departmental enquiry has been held and wherein the misconduct alleged against the deceased employee has been found proved. Otherwise also Shri K.N. Gupta submits that the deceased appellant has not disputed that he has contested the election of the State Legislative Assembly without taking prior permission or the competent authority. Thus, the misconduct alleged against him has been admitted. It is a serious and grave misconduct and only penalty could have been of his dismissal from the services and that has been ordered. No lenient view should be taken as the deceased appellant was not a layman or illiterate person. Lastly, it is contended that ignorance of the Rules is not an excuse or it cannot be a defence to the charge framed against the deceased appellant of contesting the election of the State Legislative Assembly without prior permission of the competent authority. 9. We have given our thoughtful and anxious consideration to the vial contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the entire record of the writ petition, special appeal and the order of the learned Single Judge challenged in the appeal. 10. 9. We have given our thoughtful and anxious consideration to the vial contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the entire record of the writ petition, special appeal and the order of the learned Single Judge challenged in the appeal. 10. So far as to the alleged charge of contesting the election by the deceased appellant as an independent candidate of the State Legislative Assembly, no dispute has been raised by the deceased appellant. It is admitted that he had contested the election of the State Legislative Assembly without seeking prior permission of the competent authority. It is also not in dispute that for an employee of the panchayat samiti he was required to take prior permission for contesting the election of the State Legislative Assembly and that has not been taken. Thus it is misconduct and for this there cannot be two views. 11. During the pendency of this special appeal the delinquent employee has expired and in his place his heirs and legal representatives have been substituted. 12. The deceased appellant (delinquent employee) was a low paid employee i.e. a Teacher Gr. III in the Primary School in a village. We do not find anything unreasonable or unexpectable that the deceased delinquent employee would not have known of this provision of taking prior permission of the competent authority to contest the election of the State Legislative Assembly, It is true at one time it was law that ignorance of law is not an excuse but now it is water down and in a given case ignorance of law can be taken a reasonable excuse. Though what it is contended by Shri K.N. Gupta that ignorance of law is not an excuse, broadly we accept it to be true but if we go by the realities, we find that even the Law Graduates or the person concerned with the law may not know about all the Statutes. It may be 'difficult for an Officer of the Law Department to give out the list of all the Central or the State statutory laws. In almost all the Central or the State Acts there are the provisions for framing the rules and regulations etc. If those are added to the statutory Acts, it would become a long list which is difficult to remember. In almost all the Central or the State Acts there are the provisions for framing the rules and regulations etc. If those are added to the statutory Acts, it would become a long list which is difficult to remember. Even a literate person, what to say of an illiterate person, may not know of this list. Where we go by these realities, it is difficult to accept from an employee who remained posted throughout his service tenure in a remote village, to know this provision of seeking prior permission to contest the election of the State Legislative Assembly. Thus this defence put on behalf of the deceased delinquent employee that he was not knowing of the provision under which he was required to take the prior permission of the competent authority for contesting the election of the State Legislative Assembly, cannot be said to be a manufactured or concocted or a defence for the sake of defence. 13. We find from the reply filed by the respondent to the writ petition that they would have accepted it to be a sheer bona fide ignorance of law of the deceased delinquent employee but only in a case he would have brought the facts to the knowledge with apologies which he did not do so. Another ground given for not accepting the same that he submitted a false statement of expenses incurred by him in the election. In support of this defence the respondents have not produced any cogent and satisfactory material. This statement has been made on the basis of what it is presumed by them that without publicity by posters or by arranging vehicles for election campaign the deceased delinquent employee would not have got 332 votes. It is a question of fact whether the deceased delinquent employee arranged for publicity by posters or by arranging the vehicles for election campaign. He made a declaration as per the law of the expenses which he incurred In connection with the contesting the election for the State Legislative Assembly. The statement made by the deceased delinquent employee has to be accepted unless it is successfully controverted and proved to be incorrect to the satisfaction of the court and that could have been possible only on production of cogent and satisfactory evidence, which the respondents have utterly failed to do. 14. The statement made by the deceased delinquent employee has to be accepted unless it is successfully controverted and proved to be incorrect to the satisfaction of the court and that could have been possible only on production of cogent and satisfactory evidence, which the respondents have utterly failed to do. 14. The appellant has not apologised for his this misconduct, but that cannot be taken to be adverse to him to the extent to dismiss him from the services by way of penalty. The crux and the substance of the matter has to be considered by the respondents. The deceased delinquent employee was a Teacher Gr. III in a Primary School at grass root level and he was ignorant of the law that without taking prior permission of the competent authority he could not have contested the election for the State Legislative Assembly. In the present scenario which is prevailing in the country now the matter of the misconduct of the low paid employee is to be looked into and considered in that contest. Where the persons against whom there are serious charges of corruption, misappropriation of scandal of the Government funds are there but against them either no action is taken or it any action is taken ultimately they are given the clean chit by the Government. In comparison to those cases, the case against the delinquent employee is that he had contested the general election of State Legislative Assembly without taking prior permission of the competent authority. Contesting the election for the State Legislative Assembly by an employee is not a misconduct in the case where prior permission is taken from the competent authority. Thus, the misconduct is that he did not seek the prior permission of the competent authority to contest the State Legislative Assembly election. If we compare this misconduct with the misconduct of those employees/officers against whom serious charges of corruption, fraud, dereliction of duties, misappropriation, embezzlement of Government money are levelled and charge-sheeted, the misconduct against the appellant comparatively is negligible. The learned Single Judge has not considered all these important aspect of the matter. The courts are mean to do the substantial justice to the litigants. The learned Single Judge has not considered all these important aspect of the matter. The courts are mean to do the substantial justice to the litigants. A bona fide, honest and diligent employee should not be meted with the punishment of dismissal from services for a misconduct alleged to have been committed by him which has not resulted in causing any monetary loss to the Government or it is not relating to any misappropriation, embezzlement, fraud etc. 15. As a result of this punishment inflicted upon the deceased delinquent employee, he was not only the sufferer but real sufferer now is his poor widow, who has been deprived of the family pension. In the facts of this case we are satisfied that the punishment inflicted upon the deceased delinquent employee by the disciplinary authority is shocking to our conscience.Though the matter ordinarily is to be sent to the disciplinary authority for passing the order imposing the penalty on the deceased delinquent employee other than his dismissal from the service but unfortunately the delinquent employee has expired. We are satisfied that it is not a case where for this misconduct he could have been scot free. Some penalty is to be inflicted upon him. It is exceptional case and thus in stead of remanding this matter to the disciplinary authority to inflict appropriate punishment upon the deceased delinquent employee, we ourselves consider this matter. 16. Having considered all the aspects of the matter as discussed in the preceding part of our judgment, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be met in case the penalty of the dismissal from the service of the deceased delinquent employee is substituted by the penalty of the withholding of his six grade increments with cumulative effect. Further the heirs and Legal Representatives of the deceased delinquent employee shall not be entitled for the benefit of the arrears of salary etc. for the period from the date of his dismissal from the services to the date of filing of the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, in this court. On the date of filing of the writ petition the notional pay of the deceased shall be fixed by giving effect to this order of punishment of withholding six grade increments with cumulative effect. On the date of filing of the writ petition the notional pay of the deceased shall be fixed by giving effect to this order of punishment of withholding six grade increments with cumulative effect. The arrears of the salary from the date of writ petition to the date of his death if on the latter date he would not have attained the age of superannuation, be determined and paid to the widow within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Where he would have attained the age of superannuation before his date of death the arrears are to be calculated from the date of filing of the writ petitioner to the date of his death and accordingly the arrears are to be paid to the widow. From the date of his death or his date of attaining the age of superannuation, as the case may be, family pension of the widow shall be fixed in accordance with the pension rules applicable to the employees of this category to which the deceased delinquent employee belonged. The arrears of the family pension as well as the other retiral benefits of the deceased, P.P.O. etc. are to be given to the widow within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The compliance of this order is to be reported to this Court. The parties, in the facts of this case, are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petition Disposed of as Above. *******