NAGENDRA NATH MISHRA S/O LATE PITAMBAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HEALTH, MEDICINE, EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of memo no. 1499(4)/Health dated 23.9.2009, as contained in Annexure 8, issued by the respondent no. 3, the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna imposing penalty of deduction of 50% of pension amount of the petitioner under Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). It has also been stated in the impugned order that it can also be modified upon submission of a report by C.B.I. after completion of investigation.

(2.) At the time of point of hearing of this case a short question has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that the whole action of the respondents is invalid being contrary to the Proviso (a)(ii) Rule 43(b) of the Rules as according to such Rule no departmental proceeding can be initiated in respect of an event that had taken place more than four years before the institution of such proceeding.

(3.) Learned counsel has submitted that by Annexure 1/1 petitioner was directed to explain regarding some irregularities which had been committed by him in the year 1993. Thereafter, resolution dated 2.7.2005 (Annexure-3) declaring initiation of departmental proceeding alongwith a memo of charges was served upon the petitioner. The memo of charge has not been appended by the parties, however, in view of limited issue, as above, raised by the petitioner, I would proceed to consider the case even in its absence. It has been stated by the petitioner that the show cause was submitted by him. However, in view of the disagreement with the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer another show cause notice was issued on 26.2.2007 by the competent authority which is contained in Annexure-6. Thereafter, petitioner again gave his reply, a copy of the reply is appended as Annexure-7. It has been clarified therein that the petitioner had taken the charge of the Head Clerk on June 1993 whereas the purchase order is of January 1993. Therefore, there would be no question of his signing the purchase order in above facts and circumstances. However, finally Annexure-8 has been passed withholding 50% of pension of the petitioner in gross violation of the aforesaid proviso to the Rule 43(b) of the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court rendered in Sukhdeo Narain Verma vs. State of Bihar, 2005 3 PLJR 591. It is contended that in the aforesaid decision, the order impugned was quashed with a direction to pay arrears of pension alongwith current and future pension forthwith on the ground that any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Rules could not have been initiated in respect of misconduct that had taken place more than four years before the initiation of such proceeding.