RAM KUMAR LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner who at the relevant time was holding the post of Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the State Government has come to this Court challenging the notification bearing memo no. 435 dated 8.7.2004,. Annexure -11, whereunder the State Government has found him guilty of the charges levelled against him and in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules has forfeited 50 per cent of his pension amount for ever.

(3.) IN this connection it has been submitted that the memo of charges was served on the petitioner under resolution of the State Government dated 24.5.2002 in esponse whereto he submitted his reply before the enquiry officer who having examined the memo of charges the materials produced by the Presenting Officer in support of those charges together with the written defence of the petitioner, under report dated 27.1.2003, Annexure -5 exonerated the petitioner of all the charges levelled against him which report was considered by the Commissioner and Secretary of the department on 30.4.2003 who also concurred with the enquiry report and recommended that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner be closed. The recommendation of the departmental Commissioner was considered by the Hon ble Minister of the department on 16.5.2003, Annexure -7 and the Hon ble Minister with reference to the notes of the departmental Commissioner recorded in connection with the departmental proceeding initiated against the Superintending Engineer Sri Laxmi Shankar Prasad, the immediate superior of the petitioner at the relevant time and who was also proceeded for the same charges held that the punishment already imposed on the petitioner should be maintained and the matter be disposed of accordingly. Once the order of the Minister dated 16.5.2003, Annexure -7 was passed in the file the departmental authorities thereafter made an about turn and tailor made the second show cause notice dated 12.11.2003, Annexure -9 so as to ensure compliance of the order dated 16.5.2003, Annexure -7 and served the same on the petitioner. In response thereto the petitioner submitted reply dated 16.1.2004, Annexure -10 which was considered only with a view to complete the formality as the authorities were already under direction contained in order dated 16.5.2003 to impose the earlier punishment accordingly the authorities passed the impugned order dated 8.7.2004, Annexure -11 withholding 50 per cent of his pension.