JAI KRISHNA JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It arises out of a departmental proceeding. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.8.1997 (Annexure-8), passed by the'Government of Bihar in the Department of Water Resources, whereby punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner and he has been deprived of his pension to the extent of 5% for a period of one year. The impugned order also says that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any part of his salary beyond the subsistence allowance forlhe period of suspension (17.6.1986 to 19.8.1988). The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action.

(2.) This matter was earlier laid before a learned Single Judge of this Court. By order dated 3.11.1998, he has referred this matter for the consideration of a Division Bench because he noticed conflict of decisions of this Court on the question whether or not a departmental proceeding initiated against an employee of Bihar Government while he was still in service, requires a specific order of the State Government for its conversion to a proceedings under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). That is how the matter comes up before us for our consideration to resolve the conflict of decisions on the issue.

(3.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner had joined the services of the Bihar Government as an Assistant Engineer in 1961. He was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in 1978. He was posted as Executive Engineer, Western Koshi Canal Division No.ll, Rajnagar at Khajauli, during the period 6.11.1981 to 25.7.1986. The Bihar Government had formulated a scheme for construction of Kamala Complex structure in that area, which was executed under the supervision and control of the petitioner during the period of his posting. By order dated 17.6.1986, he was placed under suspension which was ultimately revoked on 19.8.1988. The State Government had undertaken two preliminary enquiries and, in view of the findings of the reports, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. He was served with charge-sheet dated 19.12.1990 (Annexure-3). The petitioner had shown cause by his communication dated 9.8.1991 (Annexure-4). The learned enquiry officer submitted his report dated 24.12.1992 (Annexure-5), whereby three charges have been held to have been proved and the remaining charges were held not to have been proved. The learned disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the learned enquiry officer in so far as the petitioner was exonerated of the charges, recorded reasons for his disagreement, and conveyed the same to the petitioner by his communication dated 4.3.1996 (Annexure-6). The petitioner had shown cause by his communication dated 29.3.1996 (Annexure-7). Before a final order could be passed, the petitioner superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government with effect from 31.5.1996. The departmental proceeding was converted into one under the Rules by the order of the State Government dated 29.4.1997 (Annexure-A). This was followed by the impugned order of punishment. Hence this writ petition.