SURENDRA NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition prayer is for quashing of the order, contained in Memo No. 542 dated 3 -6 -1999 which the petitioner has been awarded with punishment of deduction of 50% from his pension.

(2.) In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner retired from the post of Managing Director of District Rural Development Authority, Purnea on 31 -3 -1983. He filed his papers for release of pensionary benefits on 4 -5 -1983 arid successor in office of the petitioner on 28 -12 -1983 issued no dues certificate vide Annexure -2. However, when the pension was not released, he filed representation on 24 -6 -1985. Later, on 12 -12 -1985 a show -cause notice purporting to be under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was issued vide Annexure -3. The Director, Agriculture (Administration) was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On 29th January, 1986 the Director, Agriculture asked the petitioner to submit his show -cause within seven days vide Annexure -4. It is claimed that the petitioner asked for certain papers which were not supplied and thus on 3 -5 -1986 vide Annexure -6 submitted his show -cause though papers were not supplied and further requested for supply of papers, details of which were attached to it. On 1 -8 -1986 the petitioner vide Annexure -7 challenged the maintainability of the proceeding itself and reiterated for release of his pensionary dues. On 29 -9 -1986 the Enquiry Officer vide Annexure -8 rejected his said objection and required the petitioner as well as the State Government to produce their evidence. Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order and the order dated 12 -12 -1985 (Annexure -3) filed C.W.J.C. No. 5916 of 1986 in this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 23 -4 -1987 (Annexure -9). The Court, however, directed the concerned authorities to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months. The State Government vide notification dated 15th May, 1987, contained in Annexure -10 directed that the said proceeding be treated as a proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. It appears that thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted report and the State Government vide order dated 23 -5 -1988 held the petitioner guilty and communicated its decision to the Director, Agriculture for deduction of 50% from his pension. This order is purported to have been passed in exercise of power under Rule 43 (b) with consent of Bihar Public Service Commission. On 5 -12 -1992 only provident fund was released, but according to the petitioner without any interest after withholding it for about 10 years 8 months. Since the copy of the enquiry report was not made available to him, he made a representation on 3 -5 -1993 in writing, in reply to which the Under Secretary vide Annexure -12 asked him to copy the enquiry report kept in his office or can get copy on payment of costs for the same. However, a copy of the enquiry report dated 26 -6 -1987 has been annexed as Annexure -13. On 24th May, 1993 the Respondents issued an order to pay pension at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ - per month with effect from 1 -4 -1983 and provisional gratuity to the petitioner vide Annexure -14, but the Accountant General vide Annexure -15 issued payment order for Rs. 447/ - per month and Rs. 29,533.95 for provisional D.C.R.G. However, vide order dated 28 -6 -1993, contained in Annexure -16 the State Government issued a clarification according approval for payment of his gratuity. The petitioner challenged the validity of the initial order of punishment dated 23 -5 -1988 and the decision dated 24 -5 -1993 to deduct 50% pension and the authority slip issued in pursuance thereto and also sought for direction to the Respondents to pay full pension to the petitioner with effect from 1 -4 -1983 in C.W.J.C. No. 12059 of 1993. The said writ petition was finally allowed by this Court on 25th July, 1997 vide judgment and order contained in Annexure -17 and quashed the initial order of punishment dated 23 -5 -1988 and the aforementioned decision dated 24 -5 -1993 on the ground that the copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner much after passing of the order of punishment and as such, it cannot be held that such furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report was in compliance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. This Court further directed the disciplinary authority to hear the petitioner afresh and pass an order in accordance with law and decide the matter expeditiously. Petitioner, thereafter on 23 -8 -1997 filed a detailed representation before the Disciplinary Authority enclosing the copy of the aforesaid order passed by this Court. The' State Government entrusted the Additional Secretary, Agriculture Department for rehearing and the Additional Secretary submitted his report and finally on consideration of the same the impugned order (Annexure -1) has been passed by which petitioner has been awarded with the punishment of deduction of 50% from his pension.

(3.) According to the petitioner despite direction of this Court given in the earlier writ petition, he was neither heard nor provided with opportunity to place his case inasmuch as no second show -cause was served on him asking him to submit his defence before the impugned order was passed. The petitioner requested the Respondents to supply the enquiry report submitted by the Additional Secretary after the judgment of this Court, but the same was not supplied. His contention is that the impugned order besides being in violation of the principles of natural justice, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, perverse so much so that the Respondents have not even considered the contentions and important points raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 23rd August, 1997 either in the enquiry report or in the impugned order awarding punishment, which according to the judgment of this Court on remand was to be considered on merits afresh. Besides this, proceeding purporting to be under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, in fact, was started on 15 -5 -1987 vide Annexure -10 in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the institution, and as such the proceeding itself was illegal and bad in law.