HARIDWAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one of those unfortunate cases in which the dispute is pending and much time has elapsed on the issues in hand but the order passed in the departmental proceeding could not be affected for the reasons mentioned hereunder.

(2.) The petitioner retired on 31.1.1987 as Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Bihar. By Annexure-5, dated 19.2.1987 a decision was taken on behalf of the Government to institute a proceeding against the petitioner. Thereafter memo of charges was served vide Annexure-1 on 25.11.1997. The petitioner was asked to show cause. The petitioner did not file a reply to the show cause taking an objection that the disciplinary proceeding was not maintainable in view of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The enquiry was held which is contained in Annexure-J to the counter affidavit. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of ten charges. Before passing the order the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice to the petitioner which was received by his son. The second show cause notice alongwith the enquiry report was returned to the department with the comment that the enquiry report provided was not legible and as such the delinquent cannot file an effective show cause in the matter. Eventually Annexure-15, the order impugned order was issued deducting 30% of pension and gratuity payable to the petitioner. Being aggrieved in the manner in which the proceeding has been conducted, the petitioner has moved this Court. I may mention here that the allegations against the petitioner are that he violated the terms of the agreement of the year 1980 and increased the length of the bridge on N.H. 30 by 15 meters and thus, caused loss to the exchequer of the State Government.

(3.) Several issues have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. St has been submitted that the departmental proceeding could not be instituted under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The enquiry was ex parte and the petitioner did not get an opportunity to file reply to the second show cause notice and that the presenting officer could not in fact substantiate the allegations.