S Z H JAFRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) ON 29th December, 1990, the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. On 30th September, 1991 the petitioner retired. On 16th December, 1991, the order of suspension was revoked. After the retirement of the petitioner, he can only be punished by withholding full or a part of his pension. This power can only be exercised, as provided in the statutory rules, only after it is judged in the disciplinary proceeding that the petitioner is guilty of charges levelled against him or when the petitioner is convicted by a criminal court. The statute does not authorise withholding of full or a part of the pension until such time the guilt is proved. After the petitioner retired, 90% of his pensionary dues have been paid as by way of provisional pension. The remaining 10% has not been paid to the petitioner for no just reason. From time to time, administrative orders were issued to release 90% of the pension in case where either disciplinary proceedings or criminal proceedings were pending against the pensioner. A Division Bench of this Court held that such circulars were valid. Rule 43 of the Bihar Service Code is clear in terms. There is no ambiguity therein. It has authorised withholding of full or part pension only after proof of guilt. It has not authorised withholding of full or a part of the pension during the time the processes of proving guilt is in progress.

(3.) IN any event, there is no just reason for not concluding a disciplinary proceeding which is said to have been initiated prior to 30th September, 1991 even after expiry of almost 14 years. As yet in no criminal proceeding the petitioner has been held to be guilty. It is absolutely mala fide on the part of the respondents in not releasing full pension to the petitioner. At this juncture, it is important to mention that on 11th April, 2000, the vigilance case, which was pending against the petitioner, was closed and on 12th July, 2001, the respondents themselves held out that the petitioner should be paid his other lawful dues but despite that the petitioner has not been paid his lawful dues, which he has earned.