JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The instant intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant Jaswant Singh Sra being aggrieved of the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4392/2002 dismissing the writ petition preferred by the petitioner for assailing the order dated 10.09.2002 whereby, the petitioner, being a retired public servant, was handed down with a penalty of withholding of 10% pension for a period of 3 years. 2. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material available on record. 3. The petitioner was working as Dy. Conservator of Forest and superannuated from that post on 31.07.1997. Prior to his retirement, a charge-sheet was served to the petitioner on 28.04.1997 alleging that while working as Dy. Conservator of Forest, Churu from 03.03.1986 to 21.05.1987, the petitioner sanctioned nurseries to six individuals even though they were not eligible for the same. This sanction was granted by the petitioner under the Policy of the Forest Department of Rajasthan to provide employment and source of income to those individuals who were essentially living below poverty line. In addition thereto, the Policy required as a condition of eligibility that individual who could be sanctioned the nurseries had to own land. Three allegations were primarily set out in the charge-sheet: (i) Granting excess saplings numbering 18.65 lacs against the permissible figures of 3 lacs. (ii) None of the individuals, who were granted the sanction, were eligible because all of them belong to the same family and only one of them owned land. (iii) The applicants/so-called beneficiaries were affluent persons owning industries. An allegation was also levelled that saplings were never supplied and the bills to the tune of Rs. 1,06,423.75/- were fraudulent/fabricated. 4. The appellant petitioner denied the charges. A full-fledged enquiry was conducted on these charges. The enquiry officer held that the charge No. 1 was partly proved. The charge No. 2 was fully proved but the charge No. 3 was not proved. The State Government, upon receiving the enquiry report, issued a disagreement notice proposing that findings in respect of part exoneration from Charge No. 1 and full exoneration from Charge No. 3 deserved to be reversed. The appellant petitioner submitted a representation against the notice of disagreement. The State Government, upon receiving the enquiry report, issued a disagreement notice proposing that findings in respect of part exoneration from Charge No. 1 and full exoneration from Charge No. 3 deserved to be reversed. The appellant petitioner submitted a representation against the notice of disagreement. After considering the defences of the appellant writ-petitioner, the disciplinary authority held that all the charges were proved and on the basis of the findings of the disciplinary authority, a notice proposing penalty of withholding of 10% pension for a period of 3 years was issued. Reply of the petitioner was received; the opinion of the RPSC was sought which concurred with the proposal of imposition of penalty and accordingly, the penalty was imposed on the appellant petitioner by order dated 10.09.2002 which was assailed in the writ petition. As stated above, the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 08.08.2019 which is challenged in this special appeal. 5. Shri H.S. Sidhu, learned counsel representing the appellant writ-petitioner, vehemently and fervently urged that the findings as recorded in the order imposing penalty as well as the order passed by the learned Single Bench are contrary to record and hence, the same cannot be sustained. As a matter fact, the learned Single Bench committed grave error while holding that pecuniary loss of Rs. 1,06,423.75/- was suffered by the State Government. He further submitted that for the same charges, the Regional Forest of ficer Shri Ravi Shankar Sharma and the Forest Guard Shri Prakash Narain Gupta were exonerated by the enquiry officer and thus, there was no occasion for inflicting the penalty upon the appellant who was a retired government servant. Without prejudice to the argument that the charges are not proved, he urged that even if it is assumed for the sake argument that the appellant petitioner indulged in misconduct, as per him, the charges were not so grave and as no financial loss whatsoever was caused to the Government, there was no occasion for infliction of penalty of withholding of pension from the retired public servant. In support of his contentions, Shri Sidhu placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Union of India and Others vs. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022 (ii) Gauri Shankar Mishra vs. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (2) RLR 560 (iii) Shri Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 1991 (2) RLR 700 (iv) Iqbal Singh and Others vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, 1995 (1) WLC 672 (v) Ratan Lal Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2003 WLC (Raj.) UC 45 6. Per contra, Shri Utkarsh Singh, Advocate associate to Shri Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel and urged that the disciplinary authority duly appreciated the evidence available on record and concluded after due application of mind that the appellant was guilty of all the three charges. The six persons, in whose favour the nurseries were sanctioned, belonged to the same family. Only one of them owned land. As per the eligibility criterion, none of the applicants were falling below the poverty line and hence, the appellant committed gross misconduct while sanctioning the nursery in their names. 18 bills to the tune of Rs. 1,06,423.75/- for planting 3,40,300 plants were presented by six applicants and were sanctioned and the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,06,423.75/- was paid to them and hence, the charge of causing loss to the State Government is well established. On these grounds, learned counsel Shri Utkarsh Singh craved dismissal of the appeal. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned order 08.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench, the charge-sheet, enquiry officer's report as well as the impugned order dated 10.09.2002 whereby the penalty aforesaid was imposed on the appellant and his two co-employees Shri Ravi Shankar Sharma and Shri Prakash Narain Gupta. 8. The main submission of Shri Sidhu to assail the impugned orders was that as a matter of fact, no loss was caused to the State Government by the actions of the appellant. 8. The main submission of Shri Sidhu to assail the impugned orders was that as a matter of fact, no loss was caused to the State Government by the actions of the appellant. In this regard, on going through the material available on record, we find that the disciplinary authority, after discussing the evidence available on record, recorded the categoric finding that six applicants in whose favour the nursery was granted by the Forest of ficers including the appellant, submitted the bills in the month of March, 1988 claiming that they had planted a total of 3.60 lakh saplings. This amount was duly sanctioned and was paid to the applicants. The findings of facts recorded by the disciplinary authority clearly establish that none of the applicants was eligible for the nursery scheme of the Forest Department. The argument of Shri Sidhu was mainly based on the fact that the petitioner retired on 31.07.1987 whereas the bills were submitted and were paid in the month of March, 1988. The fact remains that ineligible persons were sanctioned the nurseries by the appellant and these very ineligible persons presented the bills and drew the amount referred to supra and hence, unquestionably, the appellant's action resulted into financial loss being caused to the State Government. The judgments which have been relied upon by the appellant's counsel primarily deal with the situation that no financial loss was caused by the alleged misconduct of the Government employee and in that circumstance, the order of withholding of pension could not have been passed. However, in the present case, we are duly satisfied that it is only as a consequence of the nurseries being sanctioned by the appellant petitioner to ineligible persons that they were facilitated in drawing the payment aforesaid against the fictitious bills and hence, without any doubt, the appellant was rightly held responsible for causing financial loss to the State Government. The findings of facts recorded by the disciplinary authority in the impugned order dated 10.09.2002 have been affirmed by the learned Single Judge by a detailed order dated 08.08.2019 after thorough appreciation of material available on record. The order passed by the learned Single Bench does not suffer from any infirmity, perversity or apparent error warranting interference in this intra court appeal. 9. As a consequence, the intra court appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 10. No order as to costs.