STATE OF BIHAR Vs. MOHAMMAD IDRIS ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) By consent of learned Advocates of parties, the appeal was heard finally and is being decided by this judgment. The appellant, State of Bihar and its Officers, have brought in challenge the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court allowing writ petition filed by the respondent herein. In the said writ petition, the respondent had challenged initiation of fresh departmental proceedings against him by issuing a notice dated 17-7-1993 and also a show cause notice dated 27-9-93 calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for withholding of 70 per cent of pension. He also challenged the final order dated 13-12-1993 passed in exercise of power under Rule 139(a) and (b) of the Rules to withhold 70 per cent of pension. All these challenges were upheld by the High Court. That is how these appellants are before us.

(3.) A few relevant facts leading to this appeal may be noticed. At the relevant time in 1986-87 the respondent was working in the Irrigation department of the appellant State. It was alleged that the respondent was involved in certain irregularities during his tenure under the Department. The Flying Squad of Irrigation Department made enquiries with regard to the allegation of irregularities committed by the respondent at Rewa Ghat, Maghaul, Sarangpur and other places of Saran Embankment during the period 1986-87. The Flying Squad in its report found some financial and other irregularities in the work done by the respondent at the aforesaid places. The Government of Bihar examined the report of the Flying Squad and it was found that the respondent was responsible for the irregularities as well as financial irregularities. The respondent's explanation was asked for. Ultimately it was found that the respondent was responsible for the irregularities and that excess payment was made by the respondent to the concerned parties. The Government awarded punishment to the respondent as per its order dated 6-6-1992. The respondent challenged the said order in the High Court in C. W. J. C. No. 6696 of 1992. On 16-11-1992, the said writ petition was allowed. The High Court held that the principles of natural justice were violated by the authorities when they passed the impugned order. The copy of the report of the Flying Squad was not made available to the respondent. On that ground the impugned order dated 6-6-1992 was quashed with liberty to the State Government to proceed afresh against the respondent. It was directed that the respondent was entitled to have copy of the papers upon which the authorities may rely and thereafter, pass the appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law. As a consequence of the said decision the order of punishment was set aside. Thereafter on 31-1-1993 the respondent reached the age of superannuation and retired from Government service. On 17-7-1993, the respondent was required to submit explanation regarding irregularities. For that purpose, he was served with a notice dated 17-7-1993. Before that notice could be processed further, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 27-9-1993 intimating to him that as he had already retired from service and the period of charges was prior to four years, no action could be taken against the respondent under Rule 43 (b) of the Rules and that the Government had decided to issue show cause notice under Rule 139 of the Rules. He was called upon to show cause as to why deduction of 70 per cent of his pension should not be made. In the light of the said show cause notice, the appellant-State passed final order on 13-12-1993 in exercise of powers under Rule 139 (a) and (b) withholding of 70 per cent of pension payable to the respondent. It may be mentioned at this stage that the respondent, in the meantime, had already filed Writ Petition No. 8535 of 1993 in the Patna High Court challenging the earlier notice dated 17-7-1993. In the said writ petition by way of amendment, the respondent also challenged the subsequent show cause notice dated 27-9-1993 issued by the State authority under Rule 139 of the Rules. He also challenged the final order passed on 13-12-1993. As noted earlier, after hearing the parties, the High Court allowed the writ petition quashing these proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices dated 17-7-1993 and 27-9-1993 and also final order dated 13-12-1993.