JUDGMENT 1. JUDGMENT 1. - Following charges are levelled against the petitioner Prithvi Singh:- vkjksi 1 & ;g fd Jh i`Fohflag] vkcdkjh fujh{kd us o`Rr lqtkux<+ ds in dk dk;ZHkkj fnukad 11-09-1979 dks xzg.k fd;k vkSj fnukad 20-11-1979 ls fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s LosPNk ls jkT; lsok ls vuqifLFkr gSA vkjksi la[;k 2 & ;g fd Jh i`Fohflag] vkcdkjh fujh{kd dks vkns'k fnukad 26-12-1980 }kjk fuyfEcr fd;k tkdj fuyEcu dky esa eq[;ky; chdkusj j[kk x;kA fdUrq vkns'k dk ikyuk ugha dh vkSj rd mifLFkr ugha gq,A vkjksi la[;k 3 & ;g fd Jh i`Fohflag] vkcdkjh fujh{kd] lqtkux<+ dks fuyfEcr fd;s tkus ij o`Rr dk dk;ZHkkj Jh lEiw.kZ flag] vkcdkjh fujh{kd dks ugha laHkyk;kA Jh lEiw.kZ flag us tfj;s iapukek o`r dk dk;ZHkkj laHkkyk rks fuEu jsdkMZ ,oa eqdnek otg lcwr dks deh ikbZ xbZ& 1- 83 vfHk;ksx i=kofy;ka 2- 91 vfHk;ksxksa dk otg lcwr rFkk mudh i=kofy;ka 3- eky[kkuk iaftdk o"kZ 1980&81 ds vuqlkj 209 vfHk;ksxksa ds otg lcwr esa deh ikbZ xbZA vkjksi la[;k 4 & ;g fd Jh i`Fohflag vkcdkjh fujh{kd] lqtkux<+ ds in ij dk;Z dj jgs Fks ml le; lgk;d tu vfHk;ksDrk] iqfyl lqtkux<+ }kjk dbZ ckj fy[ks tkus ds i'pkr~ Hkh vkcdkjh vfHk;ksxksa dk pkyu U;k;ky; esa is'k ugha fd;k ftlds QyLo:i fuEu vfHk;qDrksa dks U;k;ky; }kjk fMLpktZ fd;k x;k& 1- ljdkj cuke irklh 2- ljdkj cuke xksiky 3- ljdkj cuke isekjke 4- ljdkj cuke eksgu 5- ljdkj cuke HkkxhjFk 6- ljdkj cuke lksgu 7- ljdkj cuke deyk 8- ljdkj cuke dkuflag vkjksi la[;k 5 %& ;g fd Jh i`Fohflag] o`r lqtkux<+ ds in ij dk;Z dj jgs Fks ml le; dqN eqdneksa dk otg lcwr jrux<+ eky[kkuk esa iM+k Fkk] mls dksbZ ckj lgk;d tu vfHk;ksDrk ,oa ftyk vkcdkjh vf/kdkjh] chdkusj ds funsZ'k nsus ij Hkh U;k;ky; lqtkux<+ esa izLrqr ugha fd;kA ftlds QyLo:i vfHk;ksx ij izfrdwy izHkko iM+kA vkjksi la[;k 6 %& ;g fd Jh i`Fohflag vkcdkjh fujh{kd] o`r lqtkux<+ ds in ij dk;Z dj jgs Fks ml le; lgk;d tu vfHk;ksDrk vkcdkjh] pq: us U;k;ky; esa pkyku 'kqnk vfHk;ksxksa dh dqy 57 i=kofy;ka lgk;d tu vfHk;ksDrk iqfyl dks lqiqn djus gsrq nh Fkh] fdUrq bUgksaus lqiqnZ ugha dhA fcuk fdlh otg ds vius dk;kZy; esa iM+s j[khA blds vfrfjDr vfHk;ksx ljdkj cuke Hkaoj flag o ljdkj cuke lkoar flag tks ,d o"kZ ls vf/kd le; ls yEceku Fks] mUgsa U;k;ky; esa pkyku ugha fd;kA U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 13-11-1980 dks vafre ekSdk fn;k fQj Hkh bl vksj dksbZ /;ku ugha fn;kA vkjksi la[;k 7 %& ;g fd Jh i`Fohflag] vkcdkjh fujh{kd] lqtkux<+ ds in ij dk;Zjr Fks ml le; iqfyl lqtkux<+ }kjk Hkkjr fufeZr fons'kh efnj mDr ftys esa e| fu"ks/k ?kksf"kr gksus ij idM+h xbZ FkhA tCr 'kqnk efnjk dks U;k;ky; }kjk vkcdkjh foHkkx dks tek djkus ds vkns'k Fks rFkk bldk fof/kor fuLrkj.k fd;k tkuk Fkk] blds fy;s ftyk vkcdkjh vf/kdkjh] chdkusj ds dbZ ckj i=ksa }kjk funsZ'k fn;s fdUrq bUgksaus vkns'kksa dh ikyuk ugha djrs gq;s mDr efnjk iqfyl foHkkx ls izkIr ugha dhA vkjksi la[;k 8 %& ;g fd Jh i`Fohflag] vkcdkjh fujh{kd] lqtkux<+ ds in ij dk;Z dj jgs Fks ml vof/k esa ftyk vkcdkjh vf/kdkjh] chdkusj us M~kQ~V la[;k ,p0,0@986002 fnukad 04-07-1980 ds tfj;s nhun;ky eksgfjZj o b'kjnkl xkMZ ds osru ekg twu] 1980 dh jkf'k dze'k% 477-30 o 334 :i;s dqy 811-30 :i;s deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkqxrku djus gsrq Hkstk] fdUrq bUgksaus Jh b'kjnkl dks Hkqxrku fd;k vkSj nhun;ky dks Hkqxrku ugha dj Lo;a us mi;ksx fd;kA 2. Thereafter charge-sheet was issued and charges have been found proved. After enquiry he has been discharged from service. That order has been challenged before the learned Single Judge. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner-Prithvi Singh expired. His wife has been taken on record as L.R. of Prithvi Singh. 4. While considering the fact that though the enquiry was proper and some charges are also proved, learned Single Judge held that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the penalty of discharge from service is harsh and disproportionate. 5. Learned Single Judge has modified this punishment order with the penalty of compulsory retirement. 6. The relevant part of the order of learned Single Judge reads as under: "I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material on record. As regards submission made by Shri Joshi that disciplinary authority has not applied its mind while taking decision and has not recorded its finding in respect of each charge as provided in R. 16(3) of CCA Rules, I find from impugned orders (Ex. 16 & Ex. 17) passed by disciplinary authority that detailed reasons might not have been recorded in respect of each charge but conclusions arrived at shows application of mind with regard to charges imputed against petitioner. It depends upon the authority, itself, and it is the manner in which finding is recorded by it, and I find no error being committed by disciplinary authority in recording its finding, which in my opinion, is in due compliance of requirement u/R. 16(9) of CCA Rules. Other submission made on behalf of petitioner that copy of inquiry report was not supplied to him along with orders of penalty, will be otherwise of no significance particularly in view of the fact that when the revision/review petition has been rejected as time barred and, the merits of matter have not been examined by authorities concerned, when petitioner reported for duty on 24.7.1985 in the office of respondents, which has to be accepted for the reason that respondent never came out with the case that copy of order dated 12/13.1.1984 was ever served upon the petitioner, in such fact situation, in my opinion orders passed by revisional or review authority in rejecting the petition on the ground of limitation were not justified and cannot be said to be in consonance with principles of natural justice. In present facts situation, when the orders passed by revisional and review authority, are not in conformity with scheme of CCA Rules the matter in ordinary course, was required to be remanded back for reconsideration and for passing of fresh orders after due compliance of principles of natural justice but, in the present circumstances petitioner on the date of passing orders of penalty impugned, had i rendered almost 29 years of service and was having clean record of service as nothing has come on record contrary thereto, and that apart, he has already suffered mental agony with regard to this act on the black-day of 26.12.1980 and the other charges also are in no manner relate to moral turpitude and are not of such grave i misconduct, on which a man with ordinary prudence may at all come to the conclusion for inflicting such a major penalty in such like nature of charges impugned and such penalty inflicted, in my opinion, cannot be said to be in any manner in consonance with Art 14 of Constitution of India, and more so when he had already: expired during pendency of writ petition and his wife has come on record as his legal representative. I may reiterate the principle of proportionately in disciplinary action, as is well recognised by Apex Court in Bhagwat Ram v. State of H.P., AIR 1983 SC 454 , the Apex Court observed that the penalty J imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Art 14. Similarly a Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 held that with regard to punishment inflicted upon delinquent, a Court can interfere with ~ quantum of punishment on various grounds and one of the grounds is that if penalty does not commensurate with the charge found proved against the delinquent and it then held as under: " Where the Court finds that the penalty imposed by the impugned order is arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the 3 offence committed or not warranted by facts and circumstances of the case or the requirements of that particular Government service the Court will also strike down the impugned order....." In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484 , the question posed for consideration was as to whether the High a Court/Tribunal can direct the authorities to reconsider the punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof or reconsider themselves to shorten the litigation. In this case, at para 18, the Apex Court has observed as under: "A review of the above legal position would establish that the 4 disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintained discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, 5 while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its power conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof." The Supreme Court has further examined with regard to quantum of punishment and also examined the punishment if disproportionate to the charge levelled against the delinquent the punishment can be moulded even by the High Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Even in recent judgment in Bhagwanlal Arya v. Commnr. Even in recent judgment in Bhagwanlal Arya v. Commnr. of Police, Delhi, (2004) 3 SLR 70 , the Apex Court followed its earlier decision in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (supra) while examining proportionality of punishment inflicted upon delinquent, the Apex Court in para 9 observed as under : "We are of the view that the punishment of dismissal/removal from service can be awarded only for the acts of grave nature or as cumulative effect of continued misconduct providing on corrigibility of complete unfitness for police service. Merely one incident of absence and that too because of bad health and valid and justified grounds/reasons cannot become basis for awarding such a punishment." In the present case, no reasons what to say of good & sufficient, have been assigned by disciplinary authority while inflicting impugned penalty of discharge from service, which can be said to be in consonance with requirement of R. 14 of CCA Rules - extract of which is relevant is quoted below : "14. Nature of Penalties-The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, which shall be recorded, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely : (Emphasis added) I am satisfied from the nature of charges against petitioner, which are neither of moral turpitude nor in any manner comes within grave misconduct under Rajasthan Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971, and the penalty of discharge from service inflicted upon petitioner, in my opinion, is highly excessive and disproportionate to the guilt found proved against him taking note of both the charge-sheets inasmuch as petitioner has already suffered agony for last more than 20 years and even during pendency of this writ petition, he has expired on 14.12.1995, and his wife as his legal representative is contesting the matter, hence on overall conspectus of the matter and in totality of circumstances, in my opinion, ends of justice will be met if penalty of compulsory retirement is substituted in place of discharge from service inflicted upon petitioner vide impugned orders. (Ex. 16 & Ex. 17)." 7. (Ex. 16 & Ex. 17)." 7. It is true that from the record it appears that the petitioner has sometime not hand over the files and not responded the Court's direction properly, but he has brought the facts on record that his arrears of salary were not paid in time and when he demanded regular pay, he was suspended and treated that demand as misbehaviour of the respondents. He could not even properly defend himself in the enquiry and could not some time appear before the Enquiry Officer for want of money. He was getting only Rs. 120/- basic pay per month. Even to maintain his family with that meagre amount was difficult to him, therefore, he became mentally upset and could not properly discharge his duties and even could not defined his case in the enquiry. 8. Now the petitioner-Prithvi Singh has expired. Therefore, the effective order will be regarding pension to his widow. In the interest of justice, we see no infirmity in the order if penalty of discharge is converted into compulsory retirement and widow of petitioner-Prithvi Singh will get the pension consequently. 9. In the result, we see no substance in both the appeals. 10. Consequently both the appeals stands dismissed at admission stage. 11. Since both the appeals have been dismissed, the stay applications connected therewith also stand rejected.Both appeals dismissed. *******