SURESH PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was Assistant in the Bihar School Examination Board. He was suspended on 23.8.2001. A departmental proceeding was also initiated. Copy of the charge was furnished. Inquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority. However, no inquiry report/show cause was given to the petitioner and he was awarded punishment oi dismissal from the service. He challenged the said order in C.W.J.C. No. 11398/2001. The writ petition was allowed and the order of punishment was set aside vide order dated 11.3.2003, Annexure - 2. The operative portion of the order is quoted hereinbelow:

(2.) THE petitioner during the pendency of the proceeding retired on 31.8.2001. However, a fresh proceeding was initiated against him. He challenged the said order initiating a proceeding C.W.J.C. No. 5595/ 2003. He withdrew the said writ petition in view of the fact that the said proceeding had been converted under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. After dismissal of the writ petition notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.9.2004 asking him to appear before the inquiry officer on 13.9.2004 at 11.30 AM., Annexure -5. The petitioner appeared before the authority concerned on 13.9.2004 and filed a petition for time, Annexure -6. No order was passed on the petition. However, on 14.9.2004 notice was served to the petitioner alongwith inquiry report to file second show cause, Annexure - 7. The petitioner filed second show cause stating therein that no adequate time had been granted to him to defend himself. The respondents, in fact, without taking into consideration the points raised in the show cause passed order of punishment withholding the pensionary benefits vide order dated 24.9.2004, Annexure -10. The petitioner has challenged the said order, Annexure -10, in this writ petition on the ground that no adequate opportunity had been granted to him to defend himself in the proceeding.

(3.) ON consideration this much is obvious that initially a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was dismissed from the service. The said order was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 11398/ 2001 and the Court considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not allowed adequate opportunity to defend his case and accordingly allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of punishment. The Court, however, taking into consideration that the petitioner had retired by that time observed that the respondents are at iiberty to proceed in accordance with law, which is evident from the operative portion of the order quoted above. The respondents initiated a proceeding and subsequently converted the same under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. On 12.9.2004 a notice was issued to the petitioner to appear on 13.9.2004. He appeared and filed a petition for time. No order was passed on the said petition.. In the counter affidavit the said fact has been admitted. However, it has been pointed out that the petitioner had orally stated that he had nothing to say in the matter. However, on 14.9.2004 aiongwith notice to show cause inquiry report was served to the petitioner. He filed show cause raising the question not allowing adequate opportunity to him besides other questions. The disciplinary authority without taking into consideration the question raised by the counsel for the petitioner passed order withholding the pension of the petitioner.