RAM DHYAN RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner has made two prayers in the present writ application. They are :-

(3.) The facts of the case are simple and brief. The petitioner retired from the post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary on 31st July, 2010 in the Road Construction Department. After retirement, his full pension has been sanctioned by the office of the Accountant General vide Pension Payment Order dated 25th August, 2010. Subsequently, the petitioner was given notice vide letter dated 14th March, 2013 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Road Construction Department, State of Bihar (Annexure-1) along with memo of charge in Prapatra (k) to show cause under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (for short 'Rules') why a sum of Rs. 9,70,392/- may not be recovered from him for the charges that when he was posted as Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Darbhanga, he gave extension of service period to Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, Sri Babban Prasad Singh and Md. Parvej Akhtar Ansari, all illegally appointed Lower Division Clerks, initially for three months each and later on till further orders. The notice further stated that for the alleged misconduct the petitioner was found guilty and hence the payment made as salary to the tune of Rs. 9,70,392/- to the aforesaid illegal appointees was recoverable from him and in that regard he was required to show cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice vide letter dated 26th March, 2013 (Annexure-2) in which he stated that he retired on 31st July, 2010 and thereafter finding his service to be thoroughly satisfactory his pension and other post retiral dues were sanctioned by the State and he was getting his full pension regularly since 1st August, 2010. He stated that he was posted as Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, Darbhanga from 17th June, 1995 to 11th February, 1997 and thus he remained on that post for a total period of one year seven months and twenty-four days only. The three clerks whose appointment is said to be illegal were appointed from before his posting as Superintending Engineer in the said Circle and the alleged extension of their services was granted during the period 29th June, 1996 to 10th January, 1997. He further stated that during the aforesaid period only a sum of Rs. 1,72,522/- was paid to the said clerks and there is no relevance to the amount of Rs. 9,70,392/- referred to in the notice as far as the petitioner is concerned. He further stated that the payments were made to those clerks for the duties discharged by them on their respective posts by the respective Executive Engineers and their services were also extended pursuant to the recommendations made by the respective Executive Engineers taking into consideration the exigency of work as in their respective Divisions required number of Accounts Clerk as per the work load were not available. He also stated that the show cause notice issued to him after 16 years of the alleged misconduct and after almost three years of his retirement is not tenable in law in view of the provisions prescribed under Rule 139 of the Rules. He, therefore, requested to accept the cause shown and drop the proceeding initiated against him.