ZEAUDDIN AHMAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

(2.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 02.11.2012 issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Home Department rejecting the petitioner's Resolution against the order dated 25.11.2011 issued by the Special Secretary under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules whereby the petitioner has been awarded the penalty of withholding of 10% pension. The petitioner's counsel submits that the procedure, adopted by the Authorities while ordering the punishment, was marked by flaws and that the order of the Disciplinary Authority is otherwise also not sustainable as it does not specify whether the withholding of 10% pension is for a limited period or permanently.

(3.) Learned State Counsel raises a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition itself. Submission is that the order of punishment is dated 25.11.2011. The order of the Revisional Authority is dated 02.11.2012. More than seven years thereafter, the instant writ petition has been filed on 20.01.2020. In the entire pleadings, there is not even a whisper as to why the petitioner has approached this Court after delay. The submission is that the petitioner has allowed the punishment to attain finality. The rights between the petitioner and the State, in so far as the petitioner's entitlement to pensionary benefits, have attained finality long back and, therefore, it would not be proper to upset the same at this belated stage or examining the issue regarding the correctness of the same at such a belated stage, more so where there is no explanation as to why the petitioner awoke from slumber after more than seven years and approached this Court casually by way of the instant writ proceedings.