CHAKRADHAR DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.8.1998, issued by the Under Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, contained in Annexure 15, passed in exercise of the power under rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter to be called as 'the Pension Rules ') permanently withholding 25% of his pension and directing that for the period of his suspension, nothing other than subsistence allowance shall be paid.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that initially a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter to be called as 'the Rules ') and in the said proceeding an order of punishment was passed withholding five annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the validity of the said order in C.W.J.C. No. 11774 of 1993. After filing of the said writ petition, learned State Counsel stated before this Court that the authority recalled the said order of punishment and issued another order whereby the penalty imposed earlier was modified vide order dated 27.6.1994 (Annexure 8). However, the said order was not produced and a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 7.7.1994, contained in Annexure 7, allowed the said writ petition and set aside the earlier order of punishment. However, it was left open for the authority to pass a fresh order against the petitioner, in accordance with law. Later, the order dated 27.6.1994 was issued on 23.3.1995, contained in Annexure 8, whereby while maintaining other punishment of recording of censure in his service book for the period 1992 -93 and that no subsistence allowance shall be payable during the period of suspension, the order for stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect was modified by simple stoppage of five increments.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the same has been passed without considering the show cause filed on behalf of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the exercise of the power under rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules purporting to deduct 1/4th of pension of the petitioner is not justified as the petitioner did not cause any pecuniary loss to the Government. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the punishment imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of charge for disobedience of the transfer order and, as such, the impugned order is fit to be quashed on this ground also. It was also submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules is wholly inapplicable and in any view of the matter, the order for withholding salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension passed under rule 43(b) is not sustainable as the same could have been determined by resorting to the power under rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code only.