ORDER : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2268/2002: 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.04.2022, whereby the punishment of stoppage of 25% of pension for five years has been imposed upon the petitioner by the State Government. 2. The facts appertain to the present case are that the petitioner, who was posted as Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jalore was dealing with the recruitment notified by Notification dated 04.08.1997 issued by the State Government, whereby applications from the eligible candidates were invited for the purpose of training for “Women Health Training Course.” According to said Notification dated 04.08.1997, a pregnant woman or woman having a child of less than three years of age was not eligible to undergo the said training. 3. When the selections were made by the Selection Committee under the aegis of the present petitioner with other doctors as Members, they held their meeting on 22.12.1997 and prepared a select list dated 22.12.1997. 4. Later, it was found that some candidates including Manju Bai and Shakuntala, whose names were included in the select list, were not eligible for the training, as they were having pregnancy of 16 to 18 weeks. The matter came to the notice of the respondents, perhaps in the light of litigation pending before this Court. 5. The respondents also found that while preparing select list on 22.12.1997, certain cutting and over-writing was done. Hence, a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules') was initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum of charges dated 18.11.1998, precisely containing two charges against the petitioner; (i) that there were cutting and over-writing while preparing the select list and thus, irregularities were conducted in the selection list; (ii) that the petitioner has given medical fitness certificate to two candidates namely Manju Bai and Shakuntala, though they were pregnant. 6. The petitioner filed his reply/response, whereafter the inquiry officer gave his report on 27.03.2001. In the inquiry report so furnished, the petitioner was held guilty. Charge No. 1 with regard to cutting, over-writing and irregular selection was proved against the petitioner, while charge no. 2 in relation to issuance of medical fitness certificate was not held proved against the petitioner. 7. In the inquiry report so furnished, the petitioner was held guilty. Charge No. 1 with regard to cutting, over-writing and irregular selection was proved against the petitioner, while charge no. 2 in relation to issuance of medical fitness certificate was not held proved against the petitioner. 7. When the inquiry report was placed before the disciplinary authority, he did not agree with the findings of inquiry officer given in relation to charge no. 2 and held that both the charges proved against the petitioner and imposed the punishment of forfeiture of 25% of pension for five years. 8. Mr. Sanjay Mathur assisted by Ms. Ruchita Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer in relation to charge no. 1 are misreading of the evidence and material. It was argued that the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority qua charge no. 2 is also erroneous. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel that if the disciplinary authority was not agreeable to the findings of the inquiry officer in relation to the charge no. 2, he ought to have issued a notice of disagreement and then only, he could have proceeded to record the findings against the petitioner so far as charge no. 2 is concerned. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order dated 19.04.2002 passed by the disciplinary authority is contrary to settled canons of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat, learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand argued that the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are findings of fact, duly supported by material and evidence on record and unless any irregularity is pointed out by the petitioner in the decision making process, this Court should not interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below. 11. Responding to learned counsel for the petitioner's argument that the disciplinary authority has not issued any notice, on not agreeing with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer qua charge no. 2, it was argued by Ms. Abhilasha that the notice of disagreement was not necessary. She highlighted that so far as charge no. 11. Responding to learned counsel for the petitioner's argument that the disciplinary authority has not issued any notice, on not agreeing with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer qua charge no. 2, it was argued by Ms. Abhilasha that the notice of disagreement was not necessary. She highlighted that so far as charge no. 1 is concerned, not only the disciplinary authority, even the inquiry officer has found the same to be proved and contended that having regard to the over-writing and manipulation which the petitioner has done, the order of punishment dated 19.04.2002 deserves to be affirmed. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even if this Court holds a view that the disciplinary authority was required to issue a notice to the petitioner while recording dis-satisfaction qua charge no. 2, the matter will be required to be remanded and after more than 20 years having been passed, no purpose would be served in observing formality of remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority, particularly when the finding qua charge no. 1 are infallible. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. In normal circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while having a disagreement with the findings of inquiry officer, a notice was required to be issued by the disciplinary authority, would have been accepted by the Court. But, if the facts of the case are considered in totality, it is clear that the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority both have concurred on charge no. 1, so far as cutting and over-writing in the merit list is concerned. 15. The inquiry officer has recorded a clear finding giving instances of cutting and over-writing. Neither the petitioner nor the State has placed such merit list on record so as to enable the Court to go into its veracity or manipulation made (if deemed appropriate). In the absence of such material, even if this Court proposes to, such findings cannot be gone into. Hence, even qua charge no. 2, this Court is of the view that after passing of 20 years, no fruitful purpose would be served, particularly when the disciplinary authority has given cogent reasons qua charge no. 2. 16. In the absence of such material, even if this Court proposes to, such findings cannot be gone into. Hence, even qua charge no. 2, this Court is of the view that after passing of 20 years, no fruitful purpose would be served, particularly when the disciplinary authority has given cogent reasons qua charge no. 2. 16. It is to be noted that the petitioner had simply relied upon oral version of the candidates and on the basis of the date of their last menstrual cycle, he had reported the candidates to be fit. It was incumbent upon the petitioner - a doctor by profession, to have at least asked the candidates to get their blood and urine test done. Without getting scientific test conducted, the petitioner has given certificate of fitness relying upon oral assertion, without giving due regard to the condition in the Notification that a pregnant woman would not be entitled to undergo the training course. 17. In view of the discussion foregoing, this Court neither finds any fault in the order of the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority nor does it find any case worth interference so far as the order of punishment is concerned. 18. The writ petition, therefore, fails. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2278/2002: 19. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.04.2022, whereby the punishment of stoppage of 20% of pension for five years has been imposed upon the petitioner by the State Government. 20. The facts appertain to the present case are that the petitioner, who was posted as Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jalore was dealing with the Notification dated 04.08.1997 issued by the State Government inviting applications from the eligible candidates for purpose of training for “Women Health Training Course”. According to the Notification dated 04.08.1997, bona-fide residents of State of Rajasthan was to be given preference. When the selections were made by the Selection Committee under the aegis of the present petitioner with other doctors as Members, they held the meeting and prepared a select list. 21. Later, it was found that one candidate at serial no. 20 was selected despite the fact that he was not bona-fide resident of State of Rajasthan. The matter came to the notice of the respondents, perhaps in the light of litigation pending before this Court. 22. 21. Later, it was found that one candidate at serial no. 20 was selected despite the fact that he was not bona-fide resident of State of Rajasthan. The matter came to the notice of the respondents, perhaps in the light of litigation pending before this Court. 22. The respondents also found that while preparing select list certain cutting and over-writing was done and therefore, the disciplinary inquiry under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules') was initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum of charges dated 17.01.1999, precisely containing one charge against the petitioner that there were cutting and over-writing, while preparing the select list and one candidate at serial no. 20 has been selected, who was not bona-fide resident of the State of Rajasthan. 23. The petitioner filed his reply/response, whereafter the disciplinary authority gave his inquiry report. In the inquiry report so furnished, the petitioner was held guilty and punishment of forfeiture of 20% of pension for five years was inflicted. 24. Following the reasons given in the case of Dr. Kedar Roop Mathur v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2268/2002) decided by order of even date, the present petition is dismissed.