GANAURI RAJAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 18.5.99 as contained in An -nexure 8 to the writ application, whereby orders have been passed for withholding 10% pension and also for deducting 10% of the gratuity and further ordered that the petitioner will not get any amount other than the subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. Further prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate direction for payment of entire retirement benefits including full pension, full gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment, group insurance, arrears of salary etc.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case is that he was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in 1964 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in 1974 and then Executive Engineer in 1982 and was posted at Manoharpur Road Division. It is stated that petitioner continued to work at Manoharpur till 14.7.85 as Executive Engineer and then transferred to the post of District Engineer, Jila Parishad, Saharsa and pursuant to that he handed over the charge of Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Manoharpur on 14.7.95. The petitioner was again promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on 12.1.94 and the last posting of the petitioner was in the Building Construction, Circle No.2, Ranchi on 10.8.95. While the petitioner had joined in the Headquarter and was waiting for posting he received a letter dated 11.7.95 from the Department asking him to explain for the certain matters relating to the period when he was posted as Executive Engineer at Manoharpur from 7.11.82 to 14.7.85. The petitioner submitted his reply in respect of the querries made by the Department, vide letter dated 12.7.95. The petitioner was, however, suspended vide letter dated 10.10.96 and a departmental proceeding was initiated and chargesheet was issued, vide memo dated 13.1.97. The charges levelled against the petitioner were in relation to contract work alleged to have been awarded in the year 1979 -80 and also allegations have been made against the petitioner relating to the period 1982 to 1985. The petitioner denied the charges and filed his show cause on 26.5.97 before the Enquiry Officer, who was the Chief Engineer of Rural Engineering Organisation, Chotanagpur, Ranchi. It is further stated that the petitioner superannuated on 30.11.97 and till date the departmental proceeding was not concluded. However, after expiry of one year and six months from the date of superannuation, the impugned notification dated 18.5.99 imposing penalty was issued on the basis of report of the enquiry officer.

(3.) MR . S.B. Gadodia, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned notification as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order after the expiry of one and half years from the date of superannuation of the petitioner. Learned counsel then submitted that the impugned order is violative of principle of natural justice because neither a copy of the enquiry report was given to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was given before the impugned notification was issued. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction in view of the fact that no notice and/or any information was given to the petitioner about taking of the proceeding under the provisions of Section 43 -B of the Bihar Pension Rules. Learned counsel put heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Md.Wakil vs. State of Bihar, (1997)2 PLJR 933.