Retired RAS Officer’s 100% Pension Restored After HC Finds Departmental Action Based on 2002 Quasi-Judicial Order Legally Unsustainable
Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has delivered an important ruling on departmental action against judicial and quasi-judicial officers.
The Court held that if an officer passes an order while exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers and that order is later found to be legally wrong or based on an incorrect interpretation of law, that mistake alone cannot be treated as misconduct.
The case was decided by Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit in a petition filed by retired Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) officer Fateh Rai Soni.
The High Court cancelled the order permanently stopping 100% of his pension and directed the Rajasthan government to restore his pension and pay all pending dues within two months.
The dispute related to an order passed by Soni on January 10, 2002, when he was exercising quasi-judicial powers under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, during the Prashasan Gaonon Ke Sang campaign in Churu.
The department alleged that Soni had exceeded his jurisdiction by granting khatedari rights over land recorded as pasture land (gochar land).
Soni eventually retired on August 30, 2017, from the post of Settlement Officer in Bikaner. Interestingly, the charge-sheet against him was served on the very day of his retirement, nearly 15 years after the disputed 2002 order.
There were no allegations that Soni had taken a bribe, obtained an illegal benefit, acted dishonestly, favoured someone for personal gain or acted with mala fide intention.
The department’s basic allegation was that he had wrongly interpreted the law and acted beyond his jurisdiction while passing the 2002 order.
Soni challenged the departmental proceedings and argued that if the government believed his 2002 order was legally wrong, it should have challenged that order through the appeal or revision remedies available under the law.
The government did not file an appeal or revision, and therefore the order had become final.He argued that the government could not reopen the correctness of that order almost 15 years later through departmental proceedings and then punish him by permanently stopping his entire pension.
The State government, however, argued that the issue was not simply a legal mistake. It said Soni had exercised his powers beyond his jurisdiction and granted khatedari rights over gochar land despite statutory restrictions.
According to the State, serious negligence or violation of statutory provisions can amount to misconduct even without allegations of corruption or personal benefit.The State also defended the delay, saying that the departmental proceedings had been initiated while Soni was still in service and could legally continue after his retirement under the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996.
After examining the record, the High Court found that the entire departmental case was based on Soni’s 2002 quasi-judicial order.The Court noted that the charge-sheet, inquiry report and punishment order did not contain any finding of corruption, mala fide intention, dishonesty, bias or improper motive against Soni.
According to the High Court, at most, it could be said that Soni’s legal conclusion was incorrect. But an incorrect judicial or quasi-judicial decision, by itself, cannot automatically become misconduct.
The Court also noted that the 2002 order was a reasoned quasi-judicial order. Before passing it, Soni had considered the parties’ arguments, revenue records, the Patwari’s report, the recommendation of the regularisation committee, the Gram Panchayat’s resolution and the written response of the Tehsildar.
The High Court relied on Supreme Court decisions, including Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad and Lunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar, to underline that a judicial officer should not face departmental action merely because another authority later considers the officer’s legal interpretation to be wrong.
The Court explained that judicial and quasi-judicial officers must be able to exercise their powers independently. Every judicial error cannot be treated as evidence of bad faith or misconduct.
However, the Court also made it clear that this protection is not absolute. Departmental action can be justified where there is material indicating mala fide intention, corruption, serious negligence, improper benefit, bias or another form of serious misconduct.
The High Court also found serious problems with the departmental inquiry itself. Soni had sought several documents that he needed to prepare his defence, but all the required documents were not provided to him.
Of the four departmental witnesses, only one, Om Prakash Verma, was examined. The then Tehsildar J.P. Tak, whose written statement had been an important basis for the original 2002 order, was neither called nor examined. Soni’s own statement was also not recorded.
The Court found that these shortcomings seriously affected Soni’s ability to defend himself and raised concerns about the fairness of the inquiry.
The 15-year delay in issuing the charge-sheet was another important factor. The disputed order was passed on January 10, 2002, but the charge-sheet was issued only on August 30, 2017, the day of Soni’s retirement. The final punishment order came on April 30, 2025—more than 23 years after the original order.
The High Court found that such extraordinary delay, without a satisfactory explanation, had caused serious prejudice to Soni and also affected the validity of the departmental proceedings.
The Court further held that permanently stopping 100% of his pension was excessively harsh and disproportionate.
Pension is an important statutory benefit earned through years of service, and although pension can be withheld in cases involving serious misconduct or grave negligence, the necessary legal conditions must first be established.
In Soni’s case, there was no finding of corruption, dishonesty, moral wrongdoing or other serious misconduct.
Therefore, permanently stopping his entire pension merely because of an allegedly incorrect quasi-judicial order was held to be arbitrary and disproportionate.
Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit ultimately quashed the April 30, 2025 order that had permanently stopped Soni’s 100% pension.
The High Court held that the State had failed to establish that Soni had committed “grave misconduct or grave negligence” within the meaning of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996.
The government has been directed to restore Soni’s pension and pay all consequential arrears within two months from receiving the certified copy of the judgment.