RAM AWADHESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) This is the fourth round that the Petitioner has come before this Court in respect to a Departmental Proceeding, which was initiated against him while he was still in service, but subsequently, concluded after his superannuation under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

(3.) Earlier, Petitioner has moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5808 of 1995 for quashing of an order of suspension, issued by the Additional Secretary, Water Resources (Minor Irrigation Department), State of Bihar. The suspension order had been issued against the Petitioner in contemplation of a Departmental Proceeding. The Writ Application was disposed of, directing the Respondents to conclude the Departmental Proceeding by 31st December, 1995. In case, the proceeding is not concluded by that date, suspension order shall stand vacated since 1st January, 1996. As usual, the Departmental Proceeding was not concluded by 31st of December, 1995 and the Petitioner, who was working as Engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department of Bihar, superannuated on 31st of January, 1997. The Departmental Proceeding was converted into a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and concluded awarding punishment of withholding of 100 per cent of pension and gratuity. This order was challenged by the Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1757 of 1998*, on two grounds. First, the order of punishment, passed in a Departmental Proceeding, initiated under Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, but, finally, concluded under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, after superannuation of the delinquent with regard to an event, which took place more than four years prior to the date of retirement, was illegal, such proceeding was not maintainable. Another ground for challenging the impugned order of punishment was that the enquiry had been conducted in violation of Rules of Natural Justice. Petitioner was not pro-vided any opportunity to defend his case. Despite his repeated request, documents were not supplied to him. He was merely asked to look into the documents without giving reference of evidences. The enquiry report was submitted by the Conducting Officer, which was based on no evidence. An order of punishment, passed on the basis of such enquiry report, was illegal, arbitrary and fit to be quashed. The Hon'ble Single Judge has discussed about the illegality of Departmental Proceeding at page 14 of the Judgment. In the middle of this page, it is disclosed as follows: