BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN Vs. RAVI KUMAR VERMA SON OF LATE DR. KISHORI SHARAN VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and raises a grievance with respect to the judgment dated 23.10.2003, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1646 of 2000 Ravi Kumar Verma v. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. whereby the Board has been directed to make full payment of the post-retirement benefits admissible to the writ petitioner, in spite notwithstanding of pendency of the departmental proceeding and the vigilance case against him.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The writ petitioner superannuated from the services of the Board with effect from 31.3.1997, while holding the post of Chief Engineer. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was placed under suspension by order dated 31.3.1997 (after noon). As per Board's letter No. 1273, dated 9.4.1997, the order of suspension was revoked without prejudice to the departmental proceeding and the criminal case pending against him. A major portion of post-retirement benefits were paid to him, but a few items like gratuity, leave encashment, and 10% of the pension were not paid to him in view of the pendency of the proceedings. It is relevant to state that a criminal case has been registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 1996, where the writ petitioner is facing trial and has not so far concluded. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with the direction to the Board to make full payment of the post-retirement dues admissible to the petitioner. It was observed that departmental proceeding may be concluded within a reasonable time.

(3.) The Board has preferred this appeal praying that the departmental proceeding has been concluded and 10% of pension has been with-held. He further submits that in view of the losses caused to the Board, the remaining amount may be allowed to be withheld which may abide the result of the criminal trial.