ORDER
M.L. Bhat, J.
1. The petitioner is a retired employee of the State. In terms of Article 470(b) of the Civil Service Regulations relating to pension, his pension has been reduced to 50 per cent. The petitioner had challenged the impugned order of reduction in pension as also the snow cause notice issued to him for the proposed reduction, before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed his claim petition by its order dated August 31, 1982. The petitioner has now challenged the order dated April 4, 1980 as also the judgment of respondent No. 1 dated August 31, 1982, in this writ petition.
2. Clause (b) of Article 470 of the Regulations reads as under:-
'If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper.'
3. The authorities have invoked the aforesaid provision of the Regulations to effect reduction in the petitioner's pension. It is advantageous to give brief resume of the facts which are set out in the pleadings of the parties and which emerge from the documents annexed to the writ petition.
4. The petitioner is said to have retired as Additional Treasury Officer, Varanasi on June 29, 1973. His services were continued after retirement upto March 14, 1973 (sic). On the eve of his retirement, he seems to have crossed efficiency bar in the year 1973. One Mr. S.S. Pan-dey was Senior Treasury Officer at the relevant time in Varanasi. Duties assigned to the petitioner and the said Sri S.S. Pandey were distinct and separate. Work was allocated to them and on the basis of the allocation of the work, the Senior Treasury Officer was put in charge of the double-lock of the Treasury wherein various valuables including cheque books etc. were kept. The said Mr. Pandey was responsible for issuing cheque-books to various agencies. The petitioner was put in charge of the Treasury accounts (except from April 28, 1973 to May 29, 1973). For the period mentioned above, one Mr. J.W. Gupta who was the Treasury Head Clerk, had officiated as Additional Treasury Officer also.
5. It is stated that an embezzlement of Rs. 28,64,000/- was detected in the month of October, 1974 which had allegedly taken place during the period of 14 months from October 14, 1972 to December 14, 1973. The amount is said to have been withdrawn through cheques after obtaining the same from the double-lock of Varanasi Treasury. The Collector seems to have conducted preliminary enquiry into the affairs of the Varanasi Treasury and seems to have held the Assistant Engineers and the Executive Engineers of the Divisions of the Irrigation Department responsible for such drawal without reconciling the accounts with the Treasury as required under Rules. The Collector is said to have written a D.O. letter to the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, copy whereof is placed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The issuance of cheques and non-reconciliation of accounts by the officers of the Irrigation Department is said to be against the provisions of Financial Hand Book, Vol. V, Part II and Para 778 of Financial Hand Book, Vol. VI. Under the relevant Financial Hand Book the Divisional Officer was to work-out differences at their end and if any difference was found those were to be settled by the Executive Engineer in terms of Rules and the Government order dated April 16, 1968. In terms of the said G.O. the Divisional Accountants of the Executive Engineers concerned had an obligation to contact, with their records, the Treasury Assistant concerned for comparison of the figures pertaining to account and for identifying differences, ifany, in the two sets of the accounts-books maintained at the Treasury and by the Divisional Accountants. Only few Divisional Accountants are said to have turned up for comparison of the Account-books. The petitioner is said to have issued letters dated November 24, 1969 and April 10, 1971 to the Director of the Treasuries drawing his personal attention to the apathy and indifference at the Divisional level. He had intimated to him that he was helpless to reconcile the accounts because of the Divisional Accountants not turning up for comparison of figures. During the period in which the huge amount is alleged to have been embezzled, no Divisional Accountants had turned up for reconciliation of the accounts.
6. During the course of proceedings with regard to the petitioner's payment of pension and gratuity, a notice is said to have been received by the petitioner on October 22, 1977 informing the petitioner that he had not arranged fdr reconciliation of the differences, with the result embezzlement of huge amount could not be detected in time. He was informed that his services could not be held to be thoroughly satisfactory and therefore, it was proposed to deduct l/6th from the amount of pension payable to him under Article 470 of the Civil Service Regulations. The petitioner submitted his explanation. From the reading of the notice it appears that the petitioner was found not to have complied with the requirements of paras 648 and 650 of the Financial Hand Book Vol. V, Part II. After receipt of the petitioner's reply, he is said to have received a fresh notice dated November 27, 1978 whereby the earlier notice dated October 22, 1977 was modified and it was proposed to deduct his pension to the extent of half instead of 1/6 as proposed earlier. In the said notice, the petitioner was informed that in some enquiry held in the matter of embezzlement in the three Divisions/Sub-Division of the Irrigation Department, the petitioner had also been found guilty along with other employees. He was said to have remained negligent in performance of his duties and had omitted to get the monthly reconciliation of the accounts done regularly. His services could not be held to be thoroughly satisfactory in view of his negligence. The petitioner is said to have submitted a detailed reply to the proposed notice. He was asked to submit copies of some letters which he had mentioned in his reply. But he could not submit the same as those letters were not available with him. Against the show cause notice, the petitioner filed a claim petition before respondent No. 1 challenging the show cause notice and claiming the amount of pension as also gratuity. During the pendency of his claim petition before respondent No. 1, the impugned order of reduction of his pension to the extent of 1/2 was passed on April 4, 1980, therefore, he challenged the said order also before the Tribunal by moving an amendment in his claim petition. The said petition also was dismissed on August 31, 1982 by respondent No. 1.
7. The impugned order by which the petitioner's pension has been reduced to 1/2 and the judgment of respondent No. 1 are said to be untenable. The order of reduction of pension is said to be based on no evidence inasmuch as the charge of negligence, attributed to the petitioner in not reconciling the accounts for the period during which embezzlement of the amount had taken place, is said to be without any foundation. The petitioner is said to have written letters at different times to the Divisional Accountants for being present in monthly meetings which were held at Treasury Head Quarter for reconciliation of the accounts and those requests are said to have fallen on deaf ears. The petitioner was exonerated by the Collector from the allegations and it was held that the petitioner has no involvement in the matter and even after that, the petitioners pension had been reduced. Those who were actually involved have been given a different punishment which is lenient, but in the case of the petitioner who has no involvement a severe punishment is given to him. The petitioner's contention is that the impugned order of reduction of pension had been passed after consuiting the Public Service Commission. On the other hand facts were mis-represented to the Public Service Commission and on the basis of mis-representation of fact, opinion was obtained from the said Commission which had also influenced the respondents in reducing the amount of pension of the petitioner.
8. The enquiries which were held by the respondents at the back of the petitioner are said to be bad because the petitioner was not given the report of those enquiries, nor was he asked to explain any thing which had appeared against him in the enquiry report or in C.I.D. report which is said to be the basis of the impugned order.
9. It is contended that under the Government order of 1970, disposal of correspondence was one of the mandatory duties of the Treasury Head Clerk. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner as also the impugned order does not disclose that the petitioner's services was not found thoroughly satisfactory. The petitioner had no opportunity of meeting the charges about his services having been not thoroughly satisfactory because that was never conveyed to the petitioner. He was only charged for having committed some negligence by which the embezzlement could not be disclosed in time.
10. The claim petition is said to have been rejected without application of the mind and by refusing to consider the relevant material which was placed before respondent No. 1. It is stated that some important facts, which if taken into consideration by respondent No. 1, were sufficient to exonerate the petitioner from the charge of negligence. The respondents are said to have admitted the important fact about the nature of the duties of the petitioner before respondent No. 1. In para 15 of the claim petition, the petitioner, had stated before respondent No. 1 that the cheque accounting Assistant had to regularly send the pass book or the list of cheques cashed in Form 77 together with the certificate of issues in Form 77-A after accounting of the paid cheques at the Treasury to the Executive Engineers concerned bimonthly to enable them to settle the monthly accounts in their offices in terms of paras 648 and 650 of Financial Hand Book Vol. V, Part II. This was being regularly done in time, during the petitioner's tenure as Additional Treasury Officer at Varanasi and he was vigilant and took great pain to see that the provisions of the Financial Hand Book are complied with. In their reply filed by the otherside before the claim Tribunal, para 15 of the claim petition in which the aforesaid version is contained, has been admitted. He is said to have asserted before respondent No. 1 that he had written certain letters to the concerned for being available at the Treasury office for reconciliation of the accounts. Those paras of the claim petition (Paras 18 to 22) have also been admitted. In the light of the facts which were brought before respondent No. 1 it was not warranted for respondent No. 1 to have rejected the claim petition of the petitioner on the ground that they could not go into the merits of the petitioner's case and found the order literally good as Article 470 (b) permitted such an order to be passed. Respondent No. l is said to have-refused to decide the claim petition in accordance with law and committed serious error by having mechanically disposed of the claim petition of the petitioner.
11. Article 470 (b) of the Civil Service Regulations, which is reproduced somewhere else in the judgment, confers discretion on the authority sanctioning pension to reduce the pension on the ground that the pensioner's service has not been thoroughly satisfactory and the satisfaction about the service not being satisfactory is to be assumed by the authority then he can pass an order if it is thought proper. The literal interpretation given to this Article by the respondent No. 1 appears to be correct, but if an assertion is made by the petitioner that there was no material for the authority to hold that his service had not been thoroughly satisfactory, he should not have thought it proper to reduce the pension of the petitioner. Discretion conferred on the authority under this Article, though wide, cannot be exercised without assuming thorough satisfaction about the petitioner's service being not satisfactory. The satisfaction which the authority has to assume is to be based on some cogent material and not on inferences, conjectures or surmises. Reduction of pension visits the pensioner with civil consequences, therefore, before ordering reduction, the authority has to exercise the discretion in accordance with well established norms. The order reducing the pension should not be whimsical or based on no evidence Respondent No. 1 seems to have justified the impugned order on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the case. Respondent No. 1 has not cared to look into the substance of the order. It has only considered the form of the order and in its opinion, the expression used in Article 470(b) of the Civil Service Regulations would not warrant any interference with the order of reduction of pension because the satisfaction for reducing the pension is to be assumed by some authority.
12. The main two controversies which this judgment would seek to resolve would be with regards to the exercise of discretion by the authority reducing the pension and the authority of respondent No. 1 to enquire into the substance of the order and find out whether the order was based on evidence.
13. It is well established that wider the discretionary power is conferred on an authority more caution is required to be taken by such ; authority to exercise the discretion. The State Government or the legislature conferring discretionary power on any authority always intends that the authority on whom power is conferred to exercise discretion would exercise the same fairly and would eliminate arbitrariness in exercise of discretion. Conferring discretionary power on an authority could not always become subject matter of judicial review. But the exercise of that power arbitrarily and against the intention and purpose for which such power was conferred would at once invite a judicial review.
14. The language used in Article 470 (b) of the C.S.R. would reveal that wide discretion is conferred on the authority in the matter of reduction of pension. If the authority thinks it proper it can reduce the pension by saying that the services of the pensioner have not been thoroughly satisfactory. Exercise of this type of discretion, needs an objective assessment of facts before arriving at a conclusion about service not being satisfactory of an employee. The assessment which an authority is to make with regard to the service of a pensioner not having remained thoroughly satisfactory must be based on some evidence and material. Before such evidence or material is relied upon by the authority for the purpose of ordering reduction of pension, it is necessary to be shown to the person who is likely to be affected by any order of reduction of pension. Such as expressions 'if thinks proper', or 'if the authority is satisfied' of 'if it appears to the authority', are the common features in all statutory Rules whereby discretion is conferred on an authority. These expressions have a close and important bearing on the question of jurisdiction of discretionary powers. Such expressions tend to make an authority sole judge of the existence of conditions on which the discretionary power of the said authority is to be exercised. The discretionary power conferred on an authority would not permit that authority to exercise the discretion arbitrarily or at his whim. In Article 470(b), the discretion of reduction of pension can be exercised only if it is proved that the service of the pensioner has not been thoroughly satisfactory during his tenure as employee under the Slate. The finding with regard to question of service not being satisfactory of any employee is not left to the whim of the authority. If an authority without any basis or foundation thinks it proper that the services of an employee during his tenure have not been thoroughly satisfactory, he cannot, by giving such a finding without any material being there, order the reduction of pension under the said Article.
15. Exercise of discretionary power is required to have legal limits. The discretionary power conferred on an authority to reduce pension has to strike suitable balance between executive efficiency and protection of the rights of citizen. Use of arbitrary power or use of unfettered discretion is not countenanced by any Court. Discretionary power is to be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the spirit and letter of the statute conferring such powers. Article 470(b) of the C.S.R. seeks to achieve an objective, me object being reduction in case of those employees whose services were not thoroughly satisfactory. Therefore, any order which is to be passed under this Article must have direct relation with the object it seeks to achieve. It is necessary for the authority to be convinced on objective consideration, that the services of an employee have not been thoroughly satisfactory during his tenure of service. The objective assessment and conditions precedent is not to be based on subjective considerations or no evidence. Irrelevant considerations which have been taken into account would make an order under Article 470(b) legally untenable. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 2 QB 175 at 190, Lord Denning has said about the use of discretionary powers by the statutory authority in the following words:-'The discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That means at least this; the statutory body must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous considerations which it ought not to have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith; nevertheless decision will be set aside. That is established by Padfied v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which is a landmark in modern administrative law.'
16. For invoking Article 470(b) by any authority for the purpose of ordering reduction of pension, two considerations are inherent in the said Article. Firstly, the authority has to satisfy itself on the basis of material, that the services of a person who claims pension were not thoroughly satisfactory. Secondly, while arriving at a conclusion that the service of an employee was not thoroughly satisfactory, the authority has to furnish material, evidence or any report on which he has formed his opinion, to the person concerned who is likely to be affected by his order under Article 470(b) of C.S.R. If these considerations are not expressly incorporated in the said Article, that would not mean that the authority, empowered to operate the said Article, has to omit to consider the aforesaid considerations, before he issues an order of reduction of pension in respect of an employee. These two considerations are inherent in the said Article and without taking these two considerations implicit in the Article, the Article itself would become arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In order to make this Article 470 (b) workable it is necessary that unfettered discretion conferred by this Article on an authority is exercised within the limits of law and satisfaction about the service of an employee not being satisfactory thoroughly is assumed on the basis of evidence and before that evidence is acted upon, the employee, likely to be affected by the order in that section, is given opportunity of being heard. These are the rudimentary requirements which are to be followed before the discretion under Section 470(b) is exercised by the authority.
17. A finding with regard to an employee's services not having been thoroughly satisfactory based on no evidence, cannot authorise an authority to issue an order of reduction of pension under the said Article. Lord Arkison in Folksestone Corporation v. Brockman (1914) AC 338 at 367, has said that 'an order made without any evidence to support it is, in truth, in my view, made without jurisdiction.'
18. To find facts without evidence is itself an abuse of power and source of injustice. This principle is followed in India and in all western countries where rule of law prevails.
Lord Wilberforce, while commenting on judicial review, has said:-
'If a judgment requires, before it can be made, the existence of some facts, then, although the evaluation of those facts is for the Secretary of State alone, the Court must inquire whether those facts exist, and have been taken into account, whether the judgment has been upon a proper self-direction as to those facts, whether the judgment has not been made upon other facts which ought not to have been taken into account. If those requirements are not met, then the exercise of judgment, however bona fide it may be, becomes capable of challenge.'
19. The petitioner's contention is that there was no material, no evidence and no reason for the authority to come to the conclusion that the petitioner's service was not thoroughly satisfactory and the finding with regard to petitioner's negligence given by the authority is based on no evidence. It appears to be a case of exclusion of relevant considerations and finding being based on no evidence with regard to the petitioner's service not having been thoroughly satisfactory. There is ample material on record to come to this conclusion.
20. The petitioner was allowed to cross efficiency bar in 1973 when he was about to retire. If his services were not thoroughly satisfactory during the tenure of his service, he would not have been allowed to cross efficiency bar. The petitioner was Additional Treasury Officer. He was supposed to discharge certain functions other than those functions which were assigned to the Treasury Officer, Mr. S.N. Pandey. The cheque books and valuable documents were kept in the custody of the Treasury Officer. He was issuing authority of cheque-books to different Divisions of the Irrigation Department Executive/Assistant Engineers of those departments were responsible for drawing the cash on presentation of Cheques. The petitioner had no responsibility with that aspect of the functioning of the other functionaries of the State. He has to reconcile the accounts and for that purpose Account-ants from the Divisional Offices of the Irrigation Department had to be present before the petitioner every month for reconciliation of the accounts. Divisional Accountants used to be slack in discharging their duties and the petitioner seems to have written three circular letters to the concerned authorities for directing the Divisional Accountants to attend the Treasury office at Varanasi for reconciliation of the accounts. No heed was paid to the requests of the petitioner by any authority. Therefore, he cannot be said to be negligent in performing of his duties of reconciliation of accounts. He has alleged that he was discharging his duties in accordance with the provisions of Financial Hand Book and had desired the Divisional Accountants to settle the monthly accounts in their office That version of the petitioner is not denied by the other-side. He has given the back-ground of the operation of the accounts, drawal of cash and maintenance of accounts and vouchers am? responsibility of correspondence etc. At no stage, the petitioner was found deficient in his duties. The District Collector seems to have conducted an enquiry after the alleged embezzlement was detected and he has exonerated the petitioner. The petitioner's involvement is not proved in the said embezzlement or in any thing connected with that embezzlement Other officers were also issued notices after retirement for reducing their pension under Article 470 (b) of CS.R., the petitioner was asked as to why pension amount to the extent of 1/6 of his should not be reduced. Thereafter, the said notice was superseded and another show-cause notice was given to the petitioner by which it was alleged that he had been negligent in reconciling the accounts when he was posted as Additional Treasury Officer at Varanasi. Because of bis negligence, the alleged embezzlement which had taken place there, could not be detected in time. The petitioner has replied and stated that he had discharged his function as Additional Treasury Officer strictly in accordance with the Government order dated April 16, 1968, That assertion of the petitioner is not denied by the other side.
21. It appears that the authority concerned has solicited opinion of the Public Service Commission also with regard to the punishment that was proposed to be imposed on the petitioner. It was not necessary for the authority to seek opinion from the Public Service Commission in the matter because the Public Service Commission under taw could not be associated for any action that was proposed to be taken imder Article 470(b) of the CS.R. Respondent No. 1 has appreciated the action of the authority in seeking the advice from the Public Service Commission. For seeking opinion from the Public Service Commission, which is a statutory body, entire material should have been placed before the said body. From the record, it appears and is admitted by the respondents also, that full record and details were not placed before the Public Service Commission. Some details which were to be placed before the Public Service Commission were absolutely incorrect and distorted version of facts was placed before the Public Service Commission. It is, therefore, obvious that the Public Service Commission must not have been able so render its opinion in an objective manner. The petitioner's contention is that the opinion given by the Public Service Commission, on incorrect and distorted facts furnished to it by the authority, has materially influenced the mind of the authority to exercise discretion under Article 470(b) of C.S.R. This submission does not appear to be without merit.
22. As discussed above, it was neither imperative nor obligatory for the authority to seek opinion from the Public Service Commission for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 470(b) of the CS.R. If it was done, in the words of the respondents, for abundant caution then full and correct facts should have been placed before the Public Service Commission. From the record and from the admission of the respondents, it is revealed that important record was not placed before the Public Service Commission and facts placed before the Public Service Commission were either distorted or stated incorrectly. The opinion of the Public Service Commission should not, therefore, have been taken into consideration. Any opinion given by the Public Service Commission in the absence of record or on the basis of distorted version of the facts could not be made basis for formation of an opinion under Article 470(b) of the CS.R. The authority seems to have relied on the opinion, which naturally must have influenced the authority and has made the impugned order outcome of irrelevant considerations. Therefore, the impugned order is rendered bad on this account also.
23. The case of the authorities is that they got the matter enquired into at C.I.D. level and at their own level. If any enquiry was conducted by any authority of the State or by any other agency, with regard to involvement of the petitioner, which is limited, the said material should have been supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice to enable him to explain his position in the light of those reports. The petitioner has otherwise explained his position but in the absence of any material which was used against him and which was not furnished to him, he necessarily must have felt handicapped in offering his explanation. So the hearing given to the petitioner before the adverse order was passed, does not conform to the requirements of law. The impugned order is adverse to the petitioner. It has deprived him of 50% of his pension. Therefore, he was entitled to be heard in accordance with law.
24. It was of fundamental importance that the petitioner should have been furnished all materials to enable him to show that his case did not fall within the purview of Article 470(b) of the C.S.R. Supply of material which was used against the petitioner and giving him a right of hearing by enabling him to explain the material which was sought to be used against him, was necessary for three reasons:
(1) because of the nature of the complaint which was under consideration.
(2) because of the nature of powers of the authority which could encroach on the rights of the petitioner.
(3) because of the severity of the consequences which were to follow from the exercise of discretionary power of the authority.
24A. The Authority has miserably failed to adhere to the principle of natural justice and it has arrogated to itself unbridled powers by abusing the discretion which was to be exercised by the authority in accordance with universally accepted principles.
25. The show cause notice on which the proposed punishment was imposed reveals that in connection with the alleged embezzlement, the petitioner's conduct was not satisfactory. However, in the impugned order dated April 4, 1980, his pension is reduced to 1/2 because he is said to have committed infraction of rules and had not discharged his duties according to rules. The expression used in the Article 470(b) is 'if the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory'. The word 'thoroughly' would suggest some thing more than one lapse, which also cannot be attributed to the petitioner during his service tenure. The expression 'not thoroughly satisfactory' is conjointly to be read with the woid 'service' appearing in the said Article. So, in my opinion, if the employee at one stage only in his service career has done some thing, which had delayed the detection of alleged embezzlement, it cannot be said that he falls within the ambit of Article 470(b). However, in this case, the impugned order would suggest that the pension of the petitioner is reduced for having committed infraction of rules and for not having discharged his duties with diligence. That is not the ground on which the petitioner's pension should be reduced. The ground mentioned in the impugned order has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the said Article. Therefore, the ground on which the impugned order of reduction of pension is ordered is alien to the ground mentioned in Article 470 (b) of C.S.R. There is no proximity between the reasoning given in the impugned order and the ground mentioned in Article 470(b) on which the pension can be reduced. On this account also the impugned order cannot be sustained.
26. I was taken through U.P. Public Service (Tribunal) Act, 1976. This Act did not prevent respondent No. 1 to consider whether or not the petitioner's service was not thoroughly satisfactory. Respondent No. 1 has taken a very pedantic view of the whole matter. Its judgment seems to proceed on the assumption that the authority had merely to declare itself satisfied about the service of the petitioner not being thoroughly satisfactory and after making such a declaration it was free of all legal control. This literal meaning given to the impugned order has not advanced the cause of justice and object of the Act under which the Tribunal was acting. The members of the Tribunal by refusing to go into the merits of the controversy have allowed themselves to be disarmed. Our system which is based on rule of law rejects a literal approach and does not expect literal approach from the Courts and bodies who are discharging judicial functions while dealing with the rights of the citizen. A solemn duty was cast on respondent No. 1 to look into the merits of the petitioner's case. It has refused to do so. That would amount, in legal parlance, refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. It seems to have approved the language of Article 470 (b) of the C.S.R. If that was the only object for which the Tribunal was created then no fault can be found with the Tribunal. But the purpose of setting up U.P. Public Services Tribunal has other ramifications which the Tribunal has miserably failed to understand.
27. The petitioner cannot be held to be negligent in his duties as Additional Treasury Officer during the period when the alleged embezzlement had taken place. He cannot be said to have committed any infraction of rules. His contention raised before the Tribunal that he was vigilant and had taken pains to do his duties according to rules, is admitted by the respondents before the Tribunal. Factual assertion of the petitioner with regard to nature of his duties and with regard to discharge of his duties, is admitted by the respondents in the counter-affidavit filed before this Court. Issuance of circular letters to different functionaries for compelling the Divisional Accountants for reconciling the accounts, is also admitted. The responsibilities of the Divisional Accountants and of the Executive Engineers in terms of the Government order dated April 16, 1968, are also admitted in the counter-affidavit In the first show cause notice, which Was later on superseded, the petitioner was said to have not complied with the requirements of paras 648 and 650 of the Financial Hand Book. Vol. V. Part II. There is thus no evidence on the basis of which the petitioner's services could be said to have been not thoroughly satisfactory.
The opinion received by the authority from the Public Service Commission is based on distorted and incorrect facts. Therefore, if that opinion had influenced to any extent the authority in framing his opinion, formation of the opinion is subjective. There is no evidence to involve the petitioner negligent of duties, by which the alleged scandle had not been detected in time as alleged by the authority. Respondent No. 1 has miserably failed to consider the matter objectively and has fallen in error in refusing to consider the validity or otherwise of the impugned order.
28. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the impugned order dated April 4, 1980 passed by respondent No. 2 as also the order dated August 31, 1982 passed by respondent No. 1 are legally bad, invalid and violative of petitioner's right Therefore, these orders are liable to be quashed and are to be treated as non est.
29. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated April 4, 1980 passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated August 31, 1982 passed by respondent No. 1 are hereby quashed by a writ of certiorari and respondent No. 2 is directed by a writ of mandamus to fix the petitioner's pension and arrange its payment in accordance with Rules, as is admissible to him under the Service Rules. The arrears of pension also are directed to be paid to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this judgment before respondent No. 2.