RAM BAHADUR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of the order dated 4th May 1993 by which the amount of pension and gratuity of the Petitioner has been reduced by 100% under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules (in short, 'the Pension Rules' or 'the Bihar Rules') and the order dated 11th May, 1993 by which a proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930 has been initiated against him. During the pendency of the case of corrigendum order was issued on 29th June, 1993 to the effect that the aforesaid proceeding will be deemed to be under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. During course of hearing of the case, Counsel for the State stated that the order dated 4th May 1993 will be withdrawn. Thus, the validity of the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules alone survives for consideration.

(2.) The Petitioner retired as Chief Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the State Government on 30th November 1991. He was served with a notice dated 21st May 1992 to show cause as to why recovery of the amount of loss to the tune of Rs. 24 lakhs which the State Government has suffered on account of the purchases made by the Petitioner during the tenure of his service be not made from his pension and gratuity. The Petitioner filed his show cause denying the allegations. The State Government, however, came out with the aforementioned orders dated 4th May, 1993 and 11th May 1993. It is not necessary to set out the facts relating to the charges or the explanation thereto.

(3.) Mr. S.J. Mukhopadhyaya, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, did not dispute the power of the State Government to withhold pension under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. According to him, however, such withholdment cannot exceed 10% of the amount of pension. According to him further, so far as the gratuity is concerned, the same cannot be withheld at all. In support of the latter plea, he placed reliance on D.V. Kapoor V/s. Union of India, 1990 4 SCC 314 and F.R. Jesuratnam V/s. Union of India, 1990 Supp1 SCC 640. Faced, however, with the latter decision of the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh V/s. The Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors., 1994 AIR(SC) 1484 which has held that the expression 'pension' in Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short, 'the Central Rules') includes gratuity and to that extent has over ruled the contrary view taken in the aforesaid two decisions. Mr. Mukhopadhyaya submitted that the decision has been rendered in the context of the Central Rules and cannot be taken to be an authority on the point in the context of the Bihar Pension Rules , Counsel submitted that the decision in Jarnail Singh was rendered on a finding that the term 'pension' in the context of the Central Rules is not used in contradistinction to gratuity. Counsel contended that in the Bihar Rules, 'pension' and 'gratuity' have been assigned opposite meanings and, therefore, pension cannot be said to include gratuity.