Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - As agreed by both the counsels, the present writ petition is being decided finally at this stage.

2. Petitioner has assailed the departmental proceedings initiated against him and the punishment order dated 30/09/2014 whereby 10% pension of the petitioner has been stopped for one year by the disciplinary authority under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958. He has also challenged the appellate order dated 16/02/2015 whereby the appeal was rejected.

3. The facts, which need to be noted, are that the petitioner was one of the witnesses in a case registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau Authorities against one Ram Das Khatana under Section 7, 13(1)(d)(2) of the Anti Corruption Act, 1988. At the instance of the ACB Authorities, challan was filed and trial was initiated against the said accused wherein the petitioner was called to appear as a witness. The petitioner was declared hostile and on having been declared hostile, the ACB Authorities issued a letter dated 03/05/2011 to the Addl. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner and one Om Prakash Kumawat as both of them had not accepted the statement made by them under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 before the ACB Authorities and it was stated in the letter that the Special Judge, ACB Court has directed to initiate departmental enquiry against them. The letter dated 03/05/2011 has been placed on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no such direction issued by the ACB Court and on an query being raised by the respondent-department, the ACB Authorities informed that the case is still pending before the ACB Court and it is only after the final verdict is passed that information in this regard can be given. Learned counsel submits that in-spite of such facts on record, the departmental enquiry was continued against the petitioner and the enquiry officer gave a finding in his enquiry report that the petitioner had contradicted his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 while giving statement before the ACB Court. However, it was also observed by the enquiry officer that there is no document on record to show that his statement had in any manner affected the proceedings nor the judgment had been pronounced by the ACB Court.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of such an enquiry report, which was neither disagreed by the disciplinary authority nor any disagreement notice was given to the petitioner, punishment of stoppage of 10% pension of the petitioner for one year was passed by the respondents vide order impugned dated 30/09/2014. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed vide order impugned dated 16/02/2015.

6. It is pointed out that the other co-delinquent Om Prakash Kumawat, against whom similar letter was also issued by the ACB Authorities, punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect was passed by the disciplinary authority and he also preferred appeal and the same appellate authority, who dismissed appeal of the petitioner, allowed the appeal of Om Prakash Kumawat and exonerated him of the charges. It is further stated that subsequently, the ACB Court decided the case of the accused vide judgment dated 08/10/2014 and no observation has been made by the ACB Court against the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the departmental proceedings on the grounds (a) that the departmental proceedings could not have been initiated at the behest of the letter issued by the ACB; (b) no evidence was put forward by the ACB Authorities during course of the departmental enquiry and merely on the basis of the letter, the petitioner has been held guilty; (c) the punishment of stopping pension for one year could not have been passed by the respondents while the petitioner was in service as such withholding of pension can only be ordered after retirement in terms of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1999 by the Governor; (d) the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination viz-a-viz similarly placed another person who was exonerated by the appellate authority while the same appellate authority has upheld the punishment order. Learned counsel relies on the law laid down by this Court in the case of V.K. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan and others: 2009(7)SLR 245 wherein it has been held that mere error of judgment and any contradiction in the statement given before the police and the Court, cannot be made a subject matter of departmental proceedings.

8. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was a witness made by the ACB Authorities and since the ACB Authorities had sent them a letter for conducting an enquiry, the respondents conducted enquiry in accordance with the directions therein and that the petitioner petitioner cannot be said to be a person who has not committed any misconduct.

9. having reflected over the submissions made by counsel for both the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that this is a case where at the instance of the third party namely; Anti Corruption Bureau, the departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner without application of mind. It is a sheer case of misuse of administrative powers available with the disciplinary authority who has failed to take into consideration that neither he had powers to stop pension of the petitioner who was in service at that time nor he could have held the petitioner guilty in view of the departmental enquiry report available on record which clearly stipulated that there was no misconduct which could be said to have been made out against the petitioner. No disagreement notice was given by the disciplinary authority. Even the officer who had asked to initiate enquiry was produced in enquiry. It is thus a case of no evidence. In view of law laid down in Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police: 1999(2) SCC 10, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.

10. This Court further finds that even the appellate authority, who was examining appeal of the petitioner, has acted arbitrarily and has not even bothered to see whether he is maintaining parity while passing orders in appeal. The same officer Mr. Praveen Gupta, who was holding the post of Secretary Finance (Revenue) has exonerated Mr. Om Prakash Kumawat while upholding punishment of the petitioner without adverting to the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal.

11. This Court, time and gain, has found that the appellate authorities did not even bother to examine the appeals on merits nor they do refer to the law which has been laid down by this Court as well as the Rules which are prevalent resulting in unnecessary litigation coming up before this Court apart from burden on the State exchequer.

12. The attitude of the concerned officer Mr. Praveen Gupta, Secretary Finance (Revenue) is deprecated by this Court and the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur is directed to make an appropriate remark in his service record and take appropriate proceedings against the concerned officer whose action has resulted in the litigation before this Court.

13. In view of the observations made above, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 30/09/2014 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order impugned dated 16/02/2015 passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed & set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to receive all due benefits to which he was entitled on retirement and the pension, which has been withheld, be now released along with interest @9% per annum. Th cost of the writ petition is assessed to Rs. 25,000/- which shall be recovered from the concerned officers against whom observations have been made herein above. The compliance of the order be made by the respondents within three months of the receipt of certified copy of this order.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur for necessary compliance.