ANAND MOHAN TRIPATHI Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition by a retired employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') is directed against the resolution bearing Memo No. 2106, dated 4.9.2000 (Annexure-9), passed by the Board, whereby the petitioner's pension has been reduced by 10 per cent.

(2.) According to the writ petition, the petitioner was an employee of the respondent Board and was posted as an Electrical Executive Engineer Electric Supply Division, Dehri-on-Sone, district Rohtas, during the period 26.1.1992 to August 1995. By letter dated 18.10.1996 (Annexure-2/1), the Board had served a show cause notice on the petitioner to explain as to why the request of Rohtas Rerolling Mills, Dehri-on-Sone, to enhance its load from 187 KVA to 235 KVA was not granted indicating inaction and negligence. The petitioner did not reply to the same and the Board sent its second letter dated 26.2.1997 (Annexure-2), enclosing thereto copy o,f the said show-cause notice dated 18.10.1996 (Annexure-2/1), and calling upon the petitioner to show cause. The petitioner had shown cause by his communication dated 12.3.1997 (Annexure-3). On a consideration of the cause shown by the petitioner and other relevant materials, the respondent authorities in substance came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not purposely enhanced the supply load of the said Mill. In the mean time, the petitioner was heading towards his superannuation. His post-retirement benefits were finally fixed by order dated 30.12.1997 (Annexure-1), and he superannuated with effect from 31.12.1997. This was followed by the Board's second show-cause notice dated 8.9.1999 (Annexure-4), whereby he was informed that he had been found guilty of causing loss of rupees 2.49 lacs to the Board, thereby calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why his pension to the extent of the 10 per cent be not reduced in terms of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The petitioner had shown cause by his communication dated 24.3.2000 (Annexure-8), which was followed by the impugned order whereby the petitioner's pension has been reduced to the extent of 10 per cent in terms of Rule 139 of the Rules. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits tht action under Rule 139 of the Rules predicates the detailed procedure which was not followed in the present case, and the proceeding was instead disposed of on the basis of show-cause notice. He relies on the following two reported judgments : (i) 2000(2) PLJR 845 Rajnity Jha v. The State of Bihar and Ors.; (ii) 2000 (4) PLJR 83 Ram Awadhesh Sharmav. The State of Bihar and Ors. He next submits that the impugned action is hit by the bar of four years engrafted in Rule 43 (b) of the Rules. He relies on Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ram Awadhesh Sharma (supra). He lastly submits that the principles of natural justice were not duly observed. The documents called for by him were not supplied to him.