PRABHU NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE the petitioner was in service, a charge -sheet was issued to the petitioner on 7th December, 1995, and thereby a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The charges, as were framed against the petitioner, were enquired upon by an Enquiry Officer, who submitted enquiry report on 18th January, 1997 and thereby exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. Subsequent thereto on 31st January, 1997 the petitioner retired. The disciplinary proceeding whereupon was dropped and no further action thereon was taken. The disciplinary proceeding was also not converted into a proceeding under rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. On 24th April, 1999. a show cause was issued to the petitioner, and thereby it was held out why for thorough dissatisfactory services of the petitioner, his pension should not be reduced by 10 per cent. No particulars of thorough dissatisfactory services of the petitioner have been indicated in the show cause. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 3rd August, 2000, the pension payable to the petitioner to the extent of 10 per cent thereof has been directed to be withheld in exercise of power under rule 139. of the Pension Rules, 1950.

(2.) THE Rule 139 of the said rules is as follows: (a) The full pension admissible under the rule is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. (c) The State Government reserve to themselves the powers of revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if, they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. No such power shall, however, be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, or any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed.

(3.) WHEN , however, an employee is guilty of maleficence or misfeasance, it is the duty of the employer to establish the same, who for that purpose is required to take recourse to disciplinary proceedings while the employee is in employment, and after his retirement to convert such proceeding, if initiated during his service tenure, into a proceeding under Rule 43(b) or if no such proceeding has been initiated during his service tenure, to initiate such proceeding within the time specified in the said Rule. In such proceeding, the guilt as alleged, is required to be proved as a condition precedent to take measures under the said Rule.