JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. A short issue arises for consideration in this writ appeal preferred against the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by learned Single Judge. 3. The essential facts necessary for determination of controversy involved in this present appeal are that the writ petitioner Chotu Singh (since deceased) while working as Constable was subjected to departmental inquiry on certain charges of misconduct. Initially, he was exonerated but later on de novo inquiry was directed which culminated in an order of withholding 15% of the pension as, in the meanwhile, the employee retired. The order of withholding of 15% of the pension was assailed by filing the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge against which this appeal has been preferred. 4. Pointed submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge while holding that the order of withholding 15% of the pension did not warrant any interference ignored the mandate of the binding instructions issued by the Government itself that after holding the inquiry, once an action is proposed, Government was obliged under the law to serve upon the person concerned a show cause notice specifying the action proposed to be taken under Rule 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. 5. It is the contention that the decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Manorama Asopa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2009) 3 WLN 77 and earlier J. N. Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.396/1977 was not correctly and properly appreciated. He would submit that the mandate of the instruction obliged the authority to serve a show cause notice specifying the action proposed. Therefore, it is argued, even though opportunity of hearing was afforded during departmental inquiry, a second stage show cause notice was clearly contemplated under the binding instructions. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the deceased employee was given a charge-sheet, afforded opportunity of hearing in the departmental inquiry and then only inquiry report was submitted before the competent authority by the inquiry officer. He would submit that the deceased employee was thereafter supplied with the copy of the inquiry report and also afforded an opportunity to submit his representation. He would submit that the deceased employee was thereafter supplied with the copy of the inquiry report and also afforded an opportunity to submit his representation. Therefore, it is the contention, the principles of natural justice were fully complied with and technical violation of the administrative instruction would not come to the aid of the deceased employee. That is what has been held by the learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and also the order under challenge. 8. Indisbutably, the deceased employee was subjected to departmental inquiry by issuance of a charge-sheet. It is also not in dispute that in the departmental inquiry he was afforded due and proper opportunity of hearing. The inquiry officer upon consideration of the material evidence both oral and documentary on record, came to the conclusion of fact with regard to proof of some of the charges, though not all, as levelled against the deceased employee. Thereafter, the deceased employee was supplied with the copy of the inquiry report and his comments were also sought vide memo dated 11.01.2000. Since, in the meantime the deceased employee had already retired from service, an order of withholding his pension to the extent of 15% was passed. 9. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition holding that once the deceased employee was granted an opportunity of hearing during the course of inquiry, the principles of natural justice were fully complied with and the decision rendered in the case of Manorama Asopa (supra) was distinguishable on facts. For taking that view what has mainly prevailed in the consideration is that in the departmental inquiry, an opportunity of hearing was afforded. 10. We, however, find that under an administrative instruction (clarification) inserted vide F.D. Memorandum No.F.1(54) F.D.(E-R)/67, dated 30.10.1968, it was stipulated that in case, Government decide to take action under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 in the light of the findings of the disciplinary authority, the Government will serve the person concerned with a show cause notice specifying the action proposed to be taken under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The aforesaid administrative instruction (clarification) reads as under:- “According to proviso (a) of Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, departmental proceedings if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be proceedings under the said rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service. A question has been raised whether in respect of an officer, whose case falls within the purview of the aforesaid proviso and proceedings against whom were instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, order for withdrawals withholding of pension can be passed by the subordinate authority on the conclusion of the proceedings, or the authority should refer the case to the Governor for final orders. The mater has been considered and it is clarified that the function of the Disciplinary Authority in respect of departmental proceedings referred to in Rule 170 is only to reach finding on the charges and to submit a report recording its findings to the Government. It is then for the Government to consider the findings and take a final decision under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. In case Government decide to take action under Rule 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules in the light of the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the Government will serve the person concerned with a show-cause notice specifying the action proposed to be taken under Rule 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules and the person concerned will be required to submit his reply to the show-cause notice within such time as may be specified by the Government. The Government will consider the reply and consult the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. If as a result of such consideration in consultation with the Commission, it is decided to pass an order under Rule 170 of Rajasthan Service Rules, necessary orders will be issued in the name of the Governor.” 11. The aforesaid clarification is in the form of an administrative instruction, which has the effect of supplementing the statutory rules governing terms and conditions of services of a pensioner also. If that be so, the instructions were clearly binding on the State Government and all its authorities. 12. The aforesaid clarification is in the form of an administrative instruction, which has the effect of supplementing the statutory rules governing terms and conditions of services of a pensioner also. If that be so, the instructions were clearly binding on the State Government and all its authorities. 12. A close and careful reading of the aforesaid clarification reveals that it is in two parts. The first part deals with the stage up to the submission of a report by the disciplinary authority before the State Government. The second part, which is relevant for the present case, deals with the proceedings which are required to be drawn after submission of report by the disciplinary authority to the State Government. The mandate of the instruction is unequivocal in clearly stating that in case, Government decides to take action under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 in the light of the findings of the disciplinary authority, the Government will serve the person concerned with a show cause notice specifying the action proposed to be taken under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. It further states that the person concerned will be required to submit his reply to the show cause notice within the time stipulated by the Government. It is then, as stated, the Government has to consider reply and consult the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and then, as a result of such consideration in consultation, to pass an order under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. 13. Thus, the aforesaid instruction lays down a complete mechanism of the decision making process before an order under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 could be passed. What therefore is mandated under the binding instructions is that once a departmental inquiry is concluded and the disciplinary authority prepares a report, it is required to be forwarded to the State Government. The next stage is to give a show cause notice specifying the action proposed to be taken. That would mean that the State Government has to propose as to what penalty it intends to impose on the retired employee in view of the report submitted by the disciplinary authority. The next stage is to give a show cause notice specifying the action proposed to be taken. That would mean that the State Government has to propose as to what penalty it intends to impose on the retired employee in view of the report submitted by the disciplinary authority. The decision necessarily involves application of mind not only as to whether the report submitted by the disciplinary authority should be accepted as it is, but also as to what would be appropriate penalty commensurate to the gravity of misconduct alleged and found proved against the delinquent employee (a pensioner). 14. The next stage of consideration would be application of mind to the reply submitted by the concerned employee. Even if the employee may not be in a position to seriously dispute the finding with regard to misconduct, he may otherwise place material in the form of mitigating circumstances as to why the penalty as proposed should not be imposed on him. 15. Illustratively, in a case the Government proposes penalty in the form of withholding 15% of the pension, it is always open for the employee to submit before the authority as to why penalty to such an extent may not be imposed. There may be variety of circumstances. It will involve the nature and gravity of misconduct and other circumstances relevant for the decision making. Not only that, it requires consultation with the Public Service Commission also. It is only after all these exercises undertaken that a final decision has to be arrived at to pass an order as to what penalty is required to be imposed. 16. As against aforesaid mandate of law, we find that all that was done was that the copy of report was forwarded to the deceased employee seeking his comment thereon. The notice dated 11.01.2000 does not satisfy the mandate as contained in the binding administrative instructions. Therefore, insofar as imposition of penalty of 15% of withholding pension is concerned, it is in clear violation of the provisions applicable and binding. 17. Ordinarily, on such findings, as recorded by us herein above, we would have relegated the matter to the State Government to issue a proper show cause notice, hear the retired employee and then pass an appropriate orders. 18. 17. Ordinarily, on such findings, as recorded by us herein above, we would have relegated the matter to the State Government to issue a proper show cause notice, hear the retired employee and then pass an appropriate orders. 18. Unfortunately, the employee died during the pendency of the proceeding before this Court and is now being represented through his widow and other representatives. Therefore, further proceedings, after remand from the stage of show cause notice, cannot be held in these circumstances. 19. Taking into consideration that now it is practically not possible to remand the case on account of death of the employee and further taking into consideration the nature and gravity of charges, which were found proved against the delinquent employee and that he retired in 1993, died in 2010 and since then his widow is getting family pension, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to put quietus to the issue. The order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. As far as monetary benefits are concerned, we hereby order that the widow of the deceased employee would be entitled to full pension from the date of this judgment. However, in respect of the period from 1993 till date, she would be entitled to only 50% of the deducted amount (50% of the 15% of pension which was deducted under the order passed by the Government). 20. Taking into consideration that the recipient of the benefit would be the old-aged widow of the deceased, the amount which is required to be refunded should be paid to her within an outer limit of three months from today. 21. Appeal is accordingly partly allowed in the manner and to the extent stated herein-above. No order as to costs.