BALDEO PRASAD SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired Revenue Clerk under the District Collector, East Champaran, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order of suspension made by the District Magistrate, East Champaran on 31st July, 2009 and for recovery of retiral dues. On reaching the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31st July, 2009. On 31st July, 2009 pursuant to a complaint made by one Sheela Devi the petitioner was placed under suspension. Pursuant to his suspension from service, he was allowed to draw 75% of the pension. Therefore, this Petition.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Umakant Shukla has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that though 75% of the pension was sanctioned even that pension has not been paid to the petitioner. He has submitted that no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. Unnecessarily the terminal dues of the petitioner are withheld.

(3.) The Petition is contested by the State of Bihar. According to the State Government, one Sheela Devi, who claimed to be the wife of the petitioner, made a complaint that the petitioner had contracted another marriage to one Shanti Devi while his 1st marriage to the complainant was subsisting and that the petitioner intended to give away properties to the said Shanti Devi and her children. Pursuant to the said complaint made in May 2009, an explanation was sought from the petitioner on 22nd July, 2009 and on 31st July, 2009, the date on which the petitioner was to retire from service, he was placed under suspension.