RAM NANDAN PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but significant question of law is involved in this letters patent appeal. The question relates to the procedure meant to be followed in conducting proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

(2.) The petitioner is a retired Government servant. He superannuated from the post of Head Accountant, Purnea Treasury on 31 -12 -1990. On 24 -11 -1992 he was served with a notice seeking explanation on certain points relating to provident fund withdrawals by some officers/employees of the Irrigation Department. Earlier, Khazanchi Hat P.S. Case No. 149/91 (State v. Devendra Prasad Srivastava) had been instituted by the Treasury Officer, Purnea in which the petitioner was not named as an accused. In the charge -sheet too, he did not figure. On 8 -12 -1992 the petitioner submitted his explanation. On 14 -5 -1993 he was informed by the Director of Treasuries that inquiry was proposed to be held under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (in short, 'the Pension Rules') with respect to charges enclosed with the letter. On 5 -6 -1993 he submitted his written statement denying the charges. The case of the petitioner is that 29 -6 -1993 and 30 -6 -1993 were fixed for inquiry. Though he was present on those dates no inquiry was held and nothing happened thereafter. On 5 -12 -1995 the Finance Commissioner passed an order reducing the petitioner's pension to 50%. He learnt about the order only when reduced pension was paid for the month of August 2000. The petitioner made representations on 9 -9 -2000 and 14 -9 -2000 and finally came to this Court in CWJC No. 11728/2000. In the writ petition he made a grievance that order had been passed without holding inquiry. Neither oral evidence was recorded nor any document was exhibited. No opportunity was given to produce his defence. No personal hearing was given. Without giving copies of the materials relied upon by the Department or copy of the inquiry report, if any, the impugned order was passed. The Bihar Public Service Commission was also not consulted. The learned Single Judge on 22 -11 -2000 dismissed the writ petition observing that the procedure laid down in Rule 43(b)(iii) of the Pension Rules had been followed.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that the respondents did not file any counter -affidavit before the learned Single Judge. In fact, the writ petition was disposed of without giving any opportunity to them to file affidavit. On 21 -11 -2000 the petition was filed, on 22 -11 -2000 it was dismissed. In this appeal, however, the respondents have filed counter -affidavit denying the petitioner's case of being denied the opportunity of hearing. They have stated that the proceeding under Rule 43(b) was initiated with the approval of the State Government and the petitioner was given full opportunity to present his case and produce evidence in his defence. He did not ask for any document at any stage other than those already made available, nor he disputed the fact that fraudulent withdrawals had taken place in the Purnea Treasury amounting to Rs. 31 lakh. The charges related to non -observance of the statutory rules and procedures by the treasury staff including the petitioner and the only defence of the petitioner was that he was not aware of the facts nor he was involved in the fraudulent withdrawals;