RAJAT SUBHRA BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Borah, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, AG(A&E), Assam, representing the respondent no. 3.

(2.) The writ petitioner herein, was serving as the Senior Finance and Accounts Officer in the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department under the Government of Assam. He was also holding the additional charge of Finance and Accounts Officer, in the Directorate of Social Welfare. The petitioner retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, with effect from 30/11/2021. While in service, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner, based on which, ACB PS case No. 19/2016 was registered under Sec. 120(B)/468/420/409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sec. 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on charges of corruption. The petitioner was arrested on 27/02/2017 in connection with the ACB PS case No. 19/2016. However, by order dtd. 29/05/2017 passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 513/2017, the petitioner was enlarged on bail. After retirement, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuing the memorandum of charge dtd. 30/05/2022. The respondent No.2 had accordingly, called upon the petitioner to submit his statement of defense within 10(ten) days. The two allegations brought against the petitioner were pertaining to negligence in duty and gross violation of financial procedure and rules.

(3.) Assailing the memorandum dtd. 30/05/2022, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition on twin grounds. Firstly, that in view of Rule 21(b)(ii) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (for short "Rules of 1969"), no departmental proceeding could have been initiated against the petitioner after his retirement in respect of events which took place more than 4 (four) years before the institution of the departmental proceeding. Secondly, there is no valid ground for the authorities to withhold the pension of the petitioner years after his retirement. Hence, a writ of mandamus has been prayed for.