Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner who was served with three different charge sheets under Rule 170 of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules ("R.S.R.") after he retired from service and was punished with vide orders dated 30.07.1988 (Annexure1-H), revised vide order dated 02.05.1991 (Annexure1-J) and dated 27.08.1988 (Annexure 2-H so also order dated 30.07.1988 (Annexure 3-C). 2. While petitioner was posted as Assistant Settlement Officer, Tehsil Pratapgarh in year 1979-81, certain quasi judicial orders were passed by him inter alia with regard to mutation or change in khatedari rights of applicants who moved respective applications before him under tenancy and land revenue laws and crux of the charges imputed against him was that those applications were considered by the authority to be in violation of relevant laws ; therefore, after he retired from service on 31.01.1983, he was served with three different charge sheets in exercise of powers under Rule 170 of RSR. 3. In first charge sheet dated 22.08.1983 (Annexure1-A), allegation in substance against him was that on an application filed by Onkar S/o Ghasi on 25.05.1981 praying for transfer of Khata No. 6 Khasra No. 156 (3 bighas 5 biswas) in favour of his brothers Deva and Hariram Ss/o Ghasi -after recording statements of Onkar, Deva, Hariraj and Amar Singh on 29.05.1981, and later on another application was filed by Onkar S/o Ghasi that application furnished by him earlier was under some duress and his signatures were obtained fraudulently; and as such after examining material on record, earlier orders were recalled by petitioner, which was imputed to be an act of his misconduct. 4. Under second charge sheet dated 112.1983 (Annexure 2-E) allegation was that while posting in Pratapgarh in July, 1980 application was filed for mutation in the names of applicants which was denied by petitioner and later on, when fresh application was filed which was recommended by Patwari and reported to be correct by concerned Inspector/Girdwar, petitioner passed order, which was imputed to be an act of misconduct being in violation of Rule 121 of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Record) Rules. Further charge sheet was also issued with allegations inter alia that certain orders referred to therein were passed by him on 20.12.1980 were in breach of Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 5. Further charge sheet was also issued with allegations inter alia that certain orders referred to therein were passed by him on 20.12.1980 were in breach of Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 5. In first charge-sheet (Supra), after he was held guilty, petitioner was initially punished vide order dated 30.07.1988 with stoppage of 10% pension for five years, which was recovered but subsequently, notice (Annexure 1-J) for revision of quantum of punishment for stoppage of pension from 10% to 50% was issued on 07.06.1990 upon consultation with Public Service Commission, punishment of stoppage of 10% pension was found to be inappropriate, against which petitioner filed reply and after taking into consideration his explanation, earlier order of punishment dated 30.07.1988 (Annexure 1-H) was cancelled and he was punished with penalty of stoppage of 50% pension for five years vide order dated 02.05.1991 (Annexure 1-K). 6. In second charge sheet dated 112.1983 (Annexure 2-E), he was held to be guilty in passing orders in violation of land revenue Rules and vide order dated 27.07.1988 (Annexure 2-H) he was punished with penalty of stoppage of 10% pension for two years In third charge sheet imputing charge inter alia that orders were passed by petitioner in violation of Section 42 of Tenancy Act, vide order dated 30.07.1988 (Annexure 3-C), he was punished with penalty of stoppage 20% pension for five years. Hence, this writ petition. 7. Counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that orders referred to in impugned charge sheets were passed by petitioner while in discharge of his quasi judicial functions and there was no allegation levelled against him about orders passed because of extraneous considers or his act was a deliberate or actuated with malice - in the absence whereof merely because orders passed by him in exercise of quasi judicial powers under relevant laws were either on account of wrong application of provision or interpretation of law, the authority was not competent to hold his such act as misconduct and very action initiated by holding for alleged misconduct is in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, impugned charge-sheets were not sustainable. 8. 8. Counsel further contends that once petitioner stood retired from service, obligation was casted upon authority while exercising powers under Rule 170 of RSR to prima facie examine about the nature of imputed misconduct on the part of delinquent is whether grave or any pecuniary loss has been caused to State Government and mere misconduct will not hold competent authority to issue charge sheet upon a retired personnel in exercise of Rule 170 of RSR and even if imputed charges are found proved against him, in the absence of any finding recorded regarding act of petitioner either of grave misconduct or by his such act, any pecuniary loss has caused to State Government, very infliction of impugned punishments against him are in violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and so also principles of natural justice, apart from being beyond scope of powers under Rule 170 of RSR. 9. In support of his contentions, Counsel has placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India, 1999 (7) SCC 409 , and of this Court in Pankaj Manu vs. State, CWP No. 2398/1990 decided on 03.04.1992 so also in Akla Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (1) WLC 725. 10. Respondents in reply to writ petition inter alia averred that orders passed by petitioners were in clear breach of Section 141 of Tenancy Act because imputed orders were not permissible under the tenancy law and petitioner ordered for change of title in khatedari rights in favour of concerned khatedar without there being any gift or sale in his favour. Counsel for respondents urged that act of petitioner while passing imputed orders was misconduct and that apart, he passed repeated orders in violation of Section 42 of Tenancy Act and Land Revenue (Record) Rules and therefore, even if it has not been specifically alleged in charge-sheets yet inference can be drawn that passing orders in breach and violation of tenancy or land revenue laws certainly tantamount to misconduct and can be inferred to be deliberate which cannot be ruled out. Counsel further urged that this Court in its limited scope would not like to examine orders of punishment passed by competent authority, as appellate authority to review them and findings recorded particularly when punishments were inflicted upon petitioner after affording him due opportunity of hearing in compliance of CCA Rules. 11. Counsel further urged that this Court in its limited scope would not like to examine orders of punishment passed by competent authority, as appellate authority to review them and findings recorded particularly when punishments were inflicted upon petitioner after affording him due opportunity of hearing in compliance of CCA Rules. 11. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. 12. A bare perusal of charges imputed against petitioner in all the three charge-sheets makes it clear that main thrust of imputed charges was that orders referred to in the charge-sheets were passed by him in violation of certain provisions either of tenancy or land revenue laws, which was considered to be an act of misconduct on the part of the petitioner and for which he was served with charge-sheets (Supra) in exercise of Rule 170 of RSR, after he retired from service. 13. It is not in dispute that under Rule 170 of RSR, punishment of stoppage of pension can be imposed in regular departmental or judicial proceedings, where pensioner is found to be guilty of grave misconduct or negligence for the act committed during his service rendered even on re-employment also after retirement. Rule 170, RSR, provides as under: -"170. Recoveries of losses from the pension.-The Governor further reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement". (Emphasis added) 14. Thus, from a careful perusal of Scheme of Rule 170, RSR, it is clear that the Governor has reserved his right to (1) withhold or withdraw a pension wholly or any part of it, either permanently or for a specified period and (2) recover from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, subject to the minimum. 15. Condition precedent is that in departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings, pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during period of his service of the original or on re-employment. 15. Condition precedent is that in departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings, pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during period of his service of the original or on re-employment. However, condition precedent is that there should be finding that the delinquent is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of public duty in office, as defined in RSR. Thus, it seems that rules making authority, itself , considered that those who have retired from service, should not be dragged into departmental proceedings merely because of some minor cause of misconduct committed in discharge of official duties. Since, rule making authority put further rider that if charge sheet is issued to pensioner in exercise of Rule 170 of RSR, its gratuity and commutation of pension are withheld then certainly it must commensurate with charge of grave misconduct or of negligence causing loss to State Government by pensioner. The scope is wide of mark dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. 16. Employees right to pension is a statutory right. Measure of deprivation, therefore, must be correlative to or commensurate with gravity of grave misconduct or negligence as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of his life as assured under Article 41 of the Constitution of India. 17. It is not necessary for me to further probe into scope and meaning of grave misconduct or negligence and under what circumstances, the findings of guilt are held proved. Suffice is to say that main thrust of contention of Counsel for petitioner is that mere passing of orders by petitioner while in discharge of duties as quasi judicial authority even if was in violation of mandatory requirement of respective either tenancy or land revenue laws, his act as such will not constitute an act of misconduct unless it is imputed to be actuated with malice or being deliberate act or on some extraneous considerations. Likewise controversy was examined by Apex Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji vs. Union of India (Supra), wherein it has been observed as under: - "43. If every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon independent functioning of quasi judicial officers like the appellant. Likewise controversy was examined by Apex Court in Zunjarrao Bhikaji vs. Union of India (Supra), wherein it has been observed as under: - "43. If every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon independent functioning of quasi judicial officers like the appellant. Since in sum and substance, misconduct is sought to be inferred by the appellant having committed an error of law, the charge-sheet on the face of it does not proceed on any legal premise rendering it liable to be quashed. In other words, to maintain any charge-sheet against a quasi judicial authority something more has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law, i.e., in the nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the quasi judicial order. Since, nothing of the sort is alleged herein the impugned charge-sheet is rendered illegal. The charge-sheet if sustained, will thus impinge upon the confidence and independent function of a quasi judicial authority. The entire system of administrative adjudication whereunder quasi judicial powers are conferred on administrative authority, would fall into disrepute if officers performing such functions are inhibited in performing their functions without fear or favour because of the constant threat of disciplinary proceedings". In Bhagwat Swarup vs. State, 1977 RLR 980, this Court observed as under : -"The order of the Magistrate passed in exercise of judicial discretion in such matters if it is not in accordance with law or improper or irregular or even if the procedure adopted by him is found to be defective or wanting in some respect could be set aside on revision by the Sessions Judge or by this Court. But where a Magistrate, while exercising his judicial discretion acted upon insufficient material or if it is found that further evidence of substantial nature was necessary before a search warrant under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could have been issued in a particular case, the same could not amount to misconduct". In Akladevi vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), this Court observed as under: -"37. Apart from this, if for the sake of argument it is admitted that the deceased petitioner delivered wrong Judgment s, but for that, the law is that the act of delivering wrong Judgment s by the person concerned while discharging quasi judicial functions, does not amount to either misbehaviour or misconduct on this part". 18. Apart from this, if for the sake of argument it is admitted that the deceased petitioner delivered wrong Judgment s, but for that, the law is that the act of delivering wrong Judgment s by the person concerned while discharging quasi judicial functions, does not amount to either misbehaviour or misconduct on this part". 18. Keeping in view underlying principles enunciated in the decisions (supra), I have to examine instant controversy raised. Indisputably, charge-sheets were issued against the petitioner merely on the assertions that orders passed by him while in discharges of duties as quasi judicial authority were totally in violation of provisions of either tenancy or land revenue laws and a bare and careful look at the imputed charges makes it clear that it has nowhere been alleged against him that there were any extraneous considerations on his part influencing quasi judicial orders or his act while passing such orders was actuated with malice or was a deliberate act. In the light of enunciation of law (supra), three impugned charge sheets on the face of it do not proceed on any legal premise which renders it liable to be quashed because of the reasons that punishments inflicted upon petitioner on three charge-sheets in exercise of powers under Rule 170 of RSR were contrary to provisions thereunder and in violation thereof especially when in the impugned charges, which were found proved against petitioner, there were no allegations that as a result of act of petitioner while in discharge of duties as quasi judicial authority there have been pecuniary losses caused to the Government or that his act was of grave misconduct or negligence, nor in any of impugned orders of punishment, there have been findings recorded by competent authority that petitioner has been held guilty of grave misconduct or negligence or passing of quasi judicial orders by him caused pecuniary loss to the Government. In the absence whereof , impugned orders of punishment for stoppage of pension either to the extent of 10%, 20% or 50% for five or two years etc., against the petitioner suffer from manifest basic illegality and infirmity, cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 19. In the absence whereof , impugned orders of punishment for stoppage of pension either to the extent of 10%, 20% or 50% for five or two years etc., against the petitioner suffer from manifest basic illegality and infirmity, cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 19. From the proceedings I find that impugned orders of punishment were stayed by this Court vide order dated 110.1992 and this Court further directed not to deduct any amount from the pension of petitioner and if any amount has been deducted it should be refunded to him. As per reply filed by Respondent No. 5, deducted pension amount was refunded to petitioner in terms of stay order of this Court and he has been getting full pension. 20. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned punishment for stoppage of pension as imposed upon petitioner vide orders dated 30.07.1988 (Annexure 1-H), revised vide order dated 02.05.1991 (Annexure 1-J) and dated 27.08.1988 (Annexure 2-H) so also order dated 30.07.1988 (Annexure 3-C) are quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to pay full pension as admissible under the rules. Petitioner will also be entitled to consequential benefit as a result of quashing of impugned punishments. No costs.