BAIDYA NATH DUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. M.P. Shukla for the petitioner, Mr. Navendu Kumar, JC to Standing Counsel No. VI, and Mr. Ajay Tripathi for the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

(2.) According to the writ petition, the petitioner had joined the services of the Bihar Government as a Class III employee on 14.11.1962, and superannuated with effect from 31.7.2001, while functioning as an Upper Division Clerk from the office of the Employment Exchange, Oarbhanga. He was implicated in criminal case at his village home wherein allegations were levelled against him, inter alia, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He was taken into custody from 25.9.1986 to 1.10.1986. He was under suspension for the period 25.9.1986 to 2.5.1996. He was convicted by the trial Court, inter alia, under Section 307, IPC. The petitioner had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 1986 (Baidya Nath Dubey v. State of Bihar, which was disposed of by the judgment dated 8.5.1996 (Annexure 6) of a Division Bench of this Court whereby the appeal was allowed in part, the petitioner's conviction was converted to one under Section 304 read with Section 34, IPC, and the sentence was reduced to the period he had already undergone. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had challenged the order of suspension by preferring CWJC No. 11274 of 1995 Baidyanath Dubey v. State and Ors., which was disposed of by order dated 13.5.1996 (Annexure 5), whereby the order of suspension was quashed, he was directed to be reinstated in service on the same day itself, and the respondent authorities were directed to pass necessary orders within a period of one week. The petitioner in the meanwhile superannuated with effect from 31.7.2001. He preferred CWJC No. 15767 of 2001 (Baidya Nath Dubey v. The State of Bihar and Ors.), which was disposed of by order 6.12.2001 (Anneuxre 2), whereby this Court held that his involvement in the criminal appeal was not in discharge of official duties and, therefore, would not be treated to be a misconduct so as to come in the way of the petitioner's post-retirement benefits. The respondent authorities were directed to pass appropriate orders, inter alia; on two issues, namely, the amount of Rs. 87,000/- which was allegedly embezzled by the petitioner, (out of which the amount of Rs. 26,000/-had already been recovered) could be recovered from him and, secondly, as to the manner in which the period of suspension be treated.

(3.) In due observance and obedience of the order of this Court, the respondent authorities have passed the order dated 30.3.2002 (Annexure 3), whereby it has been decided that the period of custody, namely, 25.9.1986 to 1.10.1986 shall be treated as break in service and the post-retirement benefits of the petitioner shall accordingly by computed. It has further been decided that the petitioner shall be entitled only to subsistence allowance during the entire period of suspension. The respondent authorities have passed the further order dated 22.2.2001 (Annexure 1), whereby the entire period of suspension, namely, 25.9.1986 to. 2.5.1996 shall not be taken into account for purpose of computation of pension. The petitioner impugns the two orders.