RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.5.2001 (Annexure -10), whereby in purported exercise of the power under Rule 139(a) and (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, pension of the petitioner has been reduced by 10 per cent. He has been given 90 per cent of the pension.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as a Upper Division Clerk in the Headquarter of the Bihar State Electricity Board. By order dated 11.1.1994, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was served with the memo of charge. According to the charge, on 1.11.1993 at 11.30 a.m. during the working hour, he along with his friends Chakradhar Prasad, Accountant, Bishwanath Prasad Singh, Head Clerk and Subhash Chandra Jha, Head -typist, opened the northern door of the Fund Section on the second floor of the Boards office. According to the charge, the said door was sealed but the petitioner broke open the same along with other employees referred to above which is a misconduct under Clause 29(B) (g) and (I) of the Certified Standing Order. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 19.10.1994 (Annexure -2) regarding the charges levelled against him. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty and submitted the inquiry report. A copy of the inquiry report was made available to the petitioner by letter dated 23.12.1994 (Annexure -3) and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply. Petitioner submitted his reply dated 6.1.1995 which has been placed on record as Annexure -A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) IT seems that the petitioner on 11.7.2000 filed application seeking information as to whether the inquiry shall be held de novo and although he was informed the enquiry shall be conducted de novo the petitioner did not file his reply before the newly appointed enquiry officer, He also did not cross -examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents and further did not examine any witness in his defence. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 4.9.2000 holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. In the meanwhile, petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.2.2000. By letter dated 26.2.2001 (Annexure -8) a copy of the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner and he was asked to show cause as to why only 90. per cent of the pension be not paid to him in exercise of the power under Rule 139 (a)(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules for the misconduct proven in the departmental proceeding. Petitioner submitted his reply dated 13.3.2001 and on consideration of the same, the respondents, by the impugned order, decided to grant only 90 per cent of the pension and 10 per cent of the pension was deducted in the exercise of the power under Rule 139(a)(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.