RAM YATAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer has submitted that the impugned order of punishment withholding the entire hundred percent pension of the petitioner dated 15.6.2010 is bad because the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules which was initiated against the petitioner was without sanction accorded to the State Government. He has further submitted that the charge-sheet for the said proceeding which was issued to the petitioner was reproduction of the old chargesheet which had already been quashed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the impugned order on the ground of non-supply of the inquiry report. He has also submitted that the impugned order was passed by the incompetent authority and that too without obtaining approval of the Bihar Public Service Commission as required by proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that none of the aforesaid issues raised by learned counsel for the petitioner would require any detailed consideration, inasmuch as, the charge-sheet and the order would speak for themselves that the proceedings under Rule-43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules was initiated under the orders of the State Government and the impugned order was also passed by the State Government. He has further submitted that in fact repeated attempts were made to serve the copy of the inquiry report on the petitioner and when the inquiry report sent to him under registered post on 15.3.2010 on the address which was given by the petitioner himself did not return back the authorities after giving him further opportunity on 6.5.2010 had proceeded to pass the final order which has been impugned herein.