KAUSHAL KISHORE PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Addl. Advocate General No. 13, who has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri S.S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of remaining respondents/Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board'). The petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of an order, issued vide memo No. 3876 dated 20.10.2005 by the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (Annexure '4' to the writ petition), whereby, the petitioner was inflicted a punishment of withholding of 2% pension for five years. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of memo No. 1467 dated 4.10.2007 (Annexure '6' to the writ petition), whereby, he was denied honorarium.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the petitioner was earlier proceeded depart-mentally on the charge of disobeying the order of the superior officer. It was alleged that though he had received an office order dated 3.3.2001 through which, he was directed to carry admit cards etc. to the District Education Officer, Chapra, in connection with the Annual Secondary School Examination 2001, he proceeded on un-authorised leave, which caused obstruction, amounting to disobedience of the order and indiscipline. In the departmental proceeding, charges were found proved against the petitioner, however; the inquiry officer had reported that certain documents were required to be examined. However, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment on 13.8.2001, which was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by filing a writ petition, vide C.W.J.C. No. 8409 of 2003, which was disposed of on 7.3.2005. This Court quashed the order of punishment as well as order of the appellate authority, however; liberty was granted to the respondents/Board to proceed in the matter afresh from the stage of the enquiry report, wherein, it was indicated that the disciplinary authority should go through the original file of the leave of the petitioner before taking decision in the case. After the order of this Court, a fresh order has been passed, vide Annexure '4' to the writ petition, which has been assailed in the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that due to the reason that the petitioner was seriously ill, he did not carry out order of the superior officer, as he was advised by the doctor for "rest". He further submits that order impugned is in violation of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Pension Rules'). He submits that neither the charge against the petitioner was such a serious nor there was any allegation of financial lapses and as such, after retirement of the petitioner, order impugned was not required to be passed. In support of his argument, he has heavily relied on a single Bench judgment of this Court, Sahdeo Sahu vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2000 1 PLJR 123 and also on Asha Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2005 1 PLJR 68 While referring to Sahdeo Sahu's cage , he has specifically referred to paragraph No. 8 of the judgment. For just decision in the matter, it would be appropriate to quote the same, which is as follows:--