RAJNITY JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.1998, contained in An-nexure 19, issued by the Joint Secretary to the State Government in the Water Resources Department, whereby a decision has been taken determining his pension at zero and gratuity at 90% and accordingly the same has been finally approved for payment. The petitioner has also sought for a mandamus directing the respondents-authorities to restore his full pension and to pay the arrears over and above the payment already made to him by way of provisional pension and also to pay unpaid 10% of gratuity amount besides direction to suitably compensate petitioner for the harassment, mental torture and agony.

(2.) In short, the relevant facts are that from July, 1980 to 1983 the petitioner was posted as Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Dumka witn its headquarters at Deoghar. On 23rd/30th June and 7th July, 1983, star question regarding irregularity in purchase of pipes by Minor Irrigation Department was raised on the floor of the Bihar Legislative Assembly and the same was handed over to the Question and Call Attention Committee for its enquiry and report. The said Committee submitted its report and pursuant to it, a departmental proceeding was initiated on 30th October, 1985 against the petitioner for alleged misconduct in purchase of pipes between 117.1980 to 14.11.1983. The petitioner submitted his show cause on 11.11.1985 denying the charges. Before any order could be passed on the said show cause, he superannuated from service on 30th November, 1987. Since the proceeding against the petitioner had already been initiated, vide chargesheet dated 30th October, 1985, the same after retirement was converted into one under rule 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), vide Government resolution bearing Memo No. 3388 dated 19.5.1988, contained in Annexure 10. The Departmental Enquiry Commissioner of the State, who was appointed as enquiry officer, under Memo dated 13.6.1988 (Annexure 11) and 22nd September, 1988 (Annexure 12), declined to proceed with the enquiry on technical grounds. The Government, vide resolution dated 1.3.1989, directed for observance of the formalities, yet the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner was not satisfied with the same and again he declimed to proceed with the enquiry under letter dated 14.3.1989 (Annexure 14).

(3.) Thereafter the petitioner under letter dated 21.7.89 was directed to file show cause reply, whereupon he submitted his show cause reply on 10.8.1989 (Annexure 16) and the same was forwarded to the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner, who on examining the same vide letter no. 688 dated 20.5.1992, once again returned the proceeding to carry out certain procedural formalities. It appears that the Government instead of proceeding further in the said departmental enquiry directed that the petitioner be served with the notice under rule 139(a) and (b) of the Rules and the same was duly served on the petitioner, vide letter no. 1064 dated 30th April, 1998 (Annexure 17). In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply dated 4.5.1998 (Annexure 18) and having considered the same, the impugned order dated 8.6.98, cointained in Annexure 19, has been passed fixing his pension at zero and gratuity at 90% as the authorities felt satisfied that the petitioner was guilty of illegal purchase during his posting as Superintending Engineer in the Minor Irrigation Circle, Dumka.