ORDER : 1. The petitioner challenges an order imposing penalty upon him permanently forfeiting his entire pension. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner (who expired during the pendency of the proceeding and is now represented by his legal heirs) was working as a Veterinary Doctor; on account of an incident involving killing of two blackbucks, a charge-sheet was served upon him for withholding post-mortem report and falsifying contents of the document (post-mortem report) and misrepresention and also on the ground that a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against him on 12.10.1999. 3. The charge essentially was that as a Veterinary Doctor and Surgeon, he sought to withhold the report of the post-mortem conducted by him on 02.10.1998. It was further alleged that the post-mortem report represented entirely false facts, inasmuch as the document sought to project that the carcasses of the two animals which died were not blackbucks, but rather deer and that the cause of death did not record what actually transpired. 4. In support of the charges, the Forest Department adduced evidence which included the testimony of one M.L. Sonal. Concededly, Sonal was a witness of the post-mortem proceeding. The petitioner had defended his position stating that the postmortem report was actually handed over to Sonal. Although, Sonal did seemingly support the petitioner’s case in his deposition, it was discerned that there was no documentary evidence to establish that the post-mortem report was ever received by any official – including M.L. Sonal, on the date concerned i.e. 02.10.1998. It was nobody’s case that the report was submitted soon thereafter. In these circumstances, the charge for not furnishing the post-mortem report was held proved. 5. As regards the second charge, the record would show that the petitioner’s post-mortem report indicated that one animal died on account of excess bleeding and the cause of death of the other was a fall in a field and later being attacked by predators. The department had set up a Board of four experts who examined the carcasses as well as bones of the two dead animals and reported that they were in fact blackbucks. The report also stated that in all probability, the cause of death was gun shot injuries since small charred holes were observed on the skin of the two animals. 6. The report also stated that in all probability, the cause of death was gun shot injuries since small charred holes were observed on the skin of the two animals. 6. The petitioner’s representation, against the findings of the enquiry report, were considered and rejected. He superannuated in the meanwhile on 31.03.1999. The Governor had, in light of the charge-sheet issued on 18.02.1999, directed the enquiry to continue. After rejecting the petitioner’s representation, the State imposed the penalty of permanent forfeiture of his full pension. After filing these proceedings, the petitioner died on 01.09.2004. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner endeavoured to argue that on both charges the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. He highlighted that M.L. Sonal clearly admitted to being present during the post-mortem and also too having received a copy of the report. 8. This Court notices, however, that there is no documentary evidence on the record to show that M.L. Sonal had actually received the post-mortem report; there is no acknowledgment on the part of anyone authorized to receive the document either. Furthermore, it was not the petitioner’s case that the postmortem, which was an important document considering that the death of two blackbucks caused attracted considerable public attention, was not received by any one in the Government, at that time. In these circumstances, the Court holds that there is no substance in the petitioner’s argument with respect to lack of proof of that charge. 9. As to the more serious allegation with respect to falsification of the report, the petitioner’s counsel endeavoured to suggest that what was examined were two carcasses of two different deers. On this, the document relied upon by the department is forthright and categoric. All experts unanimously stated that the two dead animals were “blackbucks” and not “black and white deers” as observed by the petitioner. Furthermore, the cause of death was also entirely different; the experts opined that the two animals were shot and had relied upon the charred holes on the skin which indicated bullet injuries. This Court notices that no attempt was made on the part of the petitioner to cross-examine any of the four experts who prepared the report. In these circumstances, the argument that the second charge – by far the most serious charge was not proved, has no merit. 10. This Court notices that no attempt was made on the part of the petitioner to cross-examine any of the four experts who prepared the report. In these circumstances, the argument that the second charge – by far the most serious charge was not proved, has no merit. 10. In the present case, it is quite evident that the deceased petitioner went out of his way to help a third party - and a celebrity, to evade facing criminal charges. There can be no two opinions about the fact that guilt was established on the basis of the materials and documents on record. 11. The last submission on behalf of the petitioner was that he had previous unblemished service of 35 years and at the fag end of his career, he faced disciplinary proceedings which led to forfeiture of his pension. Learned counsel submitted that the penalty was excessive and forfeiture of pension has also resulted in depriving the family of any financial support. Learned counsel highlighted that the petitioner’s son is unemployed and his widow also has meager resources. 12. This Court is of the opinion that the forfeiture of pension per se, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the charges, could not have been disputed. The department proved the allegations levelled against the deceased petitioner. Yet at this length of time, i.e. after more than 20 years (given the petitioner must have been under suspension and eventually superannuated on 31.03.1999), when at which stage his retiral benefits including gratuity etc. were withheld pending disciplinary proceedings, the penalty has now resulted in harshness to the legal representatives. 13. In the peculiar circumstances, it is hereby directed that the penalty shall cease to operate with effect from 31.08.2019. As a consequence, the respondent-State is directed to fix the family pension payable to the widow of the deceased-petitioner and ensure that the amounts payable from 01.09.2019 onwards are disbursed in accordance with rules. 14. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.