(1.) This writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 26.2.2002 (Annexure-20), passed by the Government of Bihar in purported exercise of powers under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, whereby the petitioner's pension to the extent of 25% per month has been reduced, the entire amount of gratuity has been forfeited, and a sum of Rs. 11,63,549.18 p. has been directed to be recovered from him for the losses caused to the State Government. It is further directed against the consequential order dated 22.3.2002 (Annexure-22) for recovery of the said amount of gratuity. The writ petition is also directed against the order dated 1.4.2004 (Annexure-23), which seeks to substitute the said orders dated 26.2.2002 (Annexure-20), and 22.3.2002 (Annexure-22), the cumulative effect of which is that apart from the said punishment of reduction of pension and forfeiture of the amount of gratuity, the amount of recovery for the losses caused to the Government has been substituted by Rs. 19,76.783 78 P.
(2.) According to the writ petition, the petitioner was posted at Begusarai as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes from November 1982 to 19.10.1987. during which period he had assessed one M/s Mukundi Lal Bansidhar to sales tax. The following chronology of events will delineate the situation lucidly :-- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_54_BLJR1_2006Html1.htm</FRM>
(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's appeal against the order on the review petition was allowed and he was granted further relief reducing his tax liability. Therefore, the very raison d'etre for the disciplinary proceeding is gone. In other words, there is no basis to initiate departmental proceedings for having caused loss on account of the order on the review petition. He relies on the following judgments : (I) AIR 1963 SC 1125 (Collector of Customs v. East India Commercial Co.). (II) 1979 (43) Sales Tax Cases 484 (Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar v. Rohtas Industries Limited). (III) Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. (IV) (Amba Bai and Ors. v. Gopal and Ors.).