NAGESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing an order dated the 24th September, 1975 of his compulsory retirement from service on attaining the age of 55 years. A copy of the said order is attached as Annexure '3' to this application.

(2.) The petitioner entered Government service as Sub-Inspector of Schools in the year 1942 and after some promotion in the year 1968 he was posted as District Superintendent of Education at Hazaribagh. The petitioner's predecessor-in-office had called for quotations for purchase of books distribution as prizes in the middle schools and also for the library in the primary and middle schools in the district, but before finalising the deal he was transferred. Thereafter an instruction was received from the Deputy Director of Education (Primary) not to purchase books at district level and as such the petitioner had to drop the purchase of books for which quotations were called for. A year thereafter the petitioner received instructions from the Deputy Director of Education directing him to purchase the books within the limits of fund available for the purpose and accordingly orders were placed for purchase of books. On 4th January, 1968, the petitioner called for the statement of accounts from the cheque writer of his office from whose statement it transpired that although orders were placed for purchase of books worth about rupees two and a half lacs, but the Head clerk-cum-Accountant of the office received supplies of books from the publishers worth rupees three lacs and he also got the whole amount paid. On 5th March, 1968, the petitioner reported against the Head clerk-cum-Accountant for misguiding the petitioner in this regard. Consequently the Head clerk-cum-Accountant was suspended by the department. On 13th and 14th May, 1968, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ranchi, submitted a report against the petitioner and three clerks in addition to the Head clerk-cum-Accountant of the petitioner's office and thereafter by an order dated 22.8.1968 of Deputy Secretary to the Government, the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry regarding irregularities and misuse of funds as reported. A copy of the said suspension order has been filed as annexure '2' to this application. Nothing further has been stated about that enquiry in the writ application and it appears that while under suspension the petitioner has been compulsorily retired.

(3.) Mr. Sinha appearing on behalf of the petitioner has urged that pending investigation of charges of misconduct, he could not be compulsorily retired in view of embargo put on such retirement under Rule 73(f) of the Bihar Service Code as it then existed. The relevant portion of the rule may be quoted as under: Notwithstanding anything contained in foregoing clauses, a Government servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct, shall not be required or permitted to retire on reaching the date of compulsory retirement, but shall be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge is concluded and a final order is passed thereon by the competent authority. On a refence to order of suspension (Annexure '2') it will appear that no depend charge for misconduct was levelled against the petitioner and all that is stated in the suspension order is as follows: In view of the reports of gross irregularities and also misuse of public funds by Shri Nageshwar Singh, District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh a member of class 11 B.E.S. the Governor of Bihar is pleased to order that pending a full and thorough enquiry into the reports, Shri Nageshwar Singh, District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh is placed under suspension with effect from the date on which this order is served on him. It is thus apparent that the petitioner has been suspended pending a full and thorough enquiry into the reports of gross irregularities and misuse of funds and till that stage no definite change o f misconduct was levelled against the petitioner. Besides that, Rule 73(f) authorised the State Government not to allow a Government servant who is being proceeded against on a charge of misconduct either to compulsorily retire or to retire on superannuation. The provision appears to be enabling provison to stop the erring Government servants charged with misconduct from escaping punishment either by way of compulsory retirement or on superannuation.