GANESH PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General, Bihar in both the writ petitions.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the Resolution contained in Memo No. 303 dtd. 2/5/2017 issued by the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar (hereinafter referred to as "PHED"), whereby and whereunder the petitioner, who was then posted as Executive Engineer in PHED, has been awarded the punishment of withholding 5% of his pension for a period of five years under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dispute giving rise to the present writ petition relates to the period when the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, PHED, Sasaram from June, 2010 to December, 2011. It is submitted that the petitioner was served with an order contained in Memo No. 489 dtd. 25/10/2013 along with a memorandum of charge initiating a departmental proceeding under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the CCA Rules, 2005"). Learned counsel submits that a total of nine charges were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner duly participated in the departmental proceeding, which was registered as Departmental Proceeding No. 57 of 2013. It is further submitted that upon conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges, as none of the nine charges was found to have been proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued. Though the charge memo was issued during the petitioner's service period on 25/10/2013, admittedly, he retired from service on 31/1/2014. The enquiry proceedings were concluded after his retirement. It is further submitted that the second show cause notice was issued on 16/7/2017, wherein the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry report. Since the petitioner had already retired, the departmental proceeding was converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which fact has been duly acknowledged in the final order itself.