NIRANJAN PRASAD SINHA Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. K. Sinha for the petitioner, and Mr. Mohit Kumar Sah for the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board and its officials. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.6.2000 (Annexure -5), passed by the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), acting as an appellate authority in accordance with the Certified Standing Orders of the Board, whereby he has upheld the order dated 8.10.1999 (Annexure -1), passed by the learned Joint Secretary of the Board, being the first authority under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). In other words, the learned appellate authority has upheld the order of the first authority whereby it has been ordered that the petitioner shall be deprived of 5 per cent of his pension from the date of the impugned order, and has further ordered for recovery of 10 per cent of the embezzled amount.

(2.) ACCORDING to the writ petition, the petitioner was an employee of the respondent Board and superannuated from its service with effect from 31.8.1994, while functioning as an Accountant. Soon after his superannuation, the respondent authorities discovered embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 1.80 lacs (approximate) in the office where the petitioner had earlier served. He was, therefore, issued show -cause notice dated 13.9.1995 (Annexure -A to the counter affidavit), as to why action be not taken against him in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Rules. Cause was shown by the petitioner by his communication dated 19.9.1995 (Annexure -B to the counter affidavit), wherein he, inter -alia, stated as follows: Thereafter the respondent -Board had passed order dated 7.4.1998, initiating proceeding under section 43(b) of the Rules against the petitioner and the Cashier (Laxmi Narain Dutta), as is manifest from the order of the first authority marked Annexure -1. Thereafter charge -sheet was issued on 9.4.1998. The petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of defending his position before the learned first authority. The enquiry report dated 24.12.1998 was submitted by the Director of Departmental Proceedings of the respondent Board. The first authority issued second show -cause notice to him calling upon as to why 10 per cent of his pension be not deducted from his monthly pension, apart from recovery of 10 per cent of the embezzled amount. The petitioner had shown cause. On consideration of the same and other materials available on record, the learned first authority passed the aforesaid order dated 8.10.1999 (Annexure -1), imposing the aforesaid penalty. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring C.W.J.C. No. 8507 of 1998 (Niranjan Prasad Singh V/s. The Bihar State Electricity Board and others) which was disposed of by order dated 28.1.2000 (Annexure -2), whereby the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to prefer statutory appeal.The petitioner thereafter presented his memorandum of appeal (Annexure -3) before the appellate authority, who has dismissed the appeal by the impugned order, and has upheld the order of the learned first authority.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner next submits that the proceeding is hit by the bar of limitation engrafted in proviso (ii) to Rule 43(b) of the Rules which lays down that such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re -employment, can be instituted only in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. In my view, Explanation (a) thereof illumines the position to the effect that for the purpose of the rule, the departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, the departmental proceeding was initiated on 7.4.1998, and the show -cause was issued to the petitioner on 9.4.1998 with respect to events which took place between November 1993 and July 1995. Obviously, therefore, the impugned proceedings are not hit by the bar of four years as engrafted in Rule 43 of the Rules. The charges were served on petitioner within four years of the date of the event. The contention, therefore, fails.