RAM PUNIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is aggrived by the order contained in letter no. 3294 dated 27th March, 1998 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar (An -nexure -8), whereby and where under the State Government in purported exercise of the power under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules has directed for deduction of 30% from the pension payable to him besides that he shall not be entitled for any payment other than subsistence allowance paid to him during the period of suspension i.e. 21.8.1980 to 17.9.1982. However, the said period of suspension has been counted for the purpose of computation of pension.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner belongs to Bihar Administrative service and it is alleged that during his posting as Sub -divisional Officer, Saraikela, Singhbhum, which was then in the State of Bihar, he encouraged illegal trade in coal, worked against the Government instruction, suppressed facts and did not discharge his duty properly, for which he was placed under suspension vide order no. 11461 dated 21.8.1980. However, his suspension was revoked vide office order no. 10467 dated 17.9.1982, but departmental proceeding was continued against him. On 5.6.1990 the Departmental Commissioner for enquiry, Bihar, Patna was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report ''vide letter no. 13/C.D.E. dated 21.1.1992. The petitioner, thereafter was given opportunity to defend against the said report, and the entire papers were sent to the Commercial Department of Government of Bihar, on consideration of which report was submitted by the said Department. However, in the meanwhile, petitioner superannuated from service on 31.12.1994 whereafter the impugned order has been passed in purported exercise of the power under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned coun - sel for the State has submitted that once the enquiry report had already been submitted much before the retirement of the petitioner and the charges against the petitioner have been found proved, the commission of grave misconduct by the petitioner stands proved and the exercise of power by the State Government in passing impugned order is well within the provisions contained in Rule 139(b).