SACHCHIDA NAND VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner while serving under the Chief Conservator of Forests as Section Officer, retired on 31.7.1991 on superannuation and after his superannuation and retirement, all his retirements dues including the pension was finalised by the State. But then there was an audit in the office where the petitioner was serving and as per the audit report (annexure-G to the counter-affidavit) it was found that the petitioner during his service period had embezzled/defalcated an amount of Rs. 98,499.01 and the respondents went on recovering the amount from the C.P.F. amount calculated and from the pension amount fixed in favour of the petitioner. From annexure-4 to the writ petition, it appears that the G.P.F. amount calculated after all deduction at Rs. 41,713/- and the whole amount was meant to be adjusted towards a part of the alleged defalcated amount and the rest of the alleged defalcated amount Rs. 56,786.01 was to be recovered from the pension amounts fixed, the pension amount has been fixed at Rs. 1589/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that the audit was made behind the back of the petitioner and no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. But only in the year 1993, i.e. 10.3.1993 a F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under Section 409 of the I.P.C. and on the basis of the F.I.R. no charge-sheet has yet been submitted and no departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, but the State Government is going to recover the amount of alleged defalcation from the petitioner from his retirement dues as mentioned earlier. The G.P.F. amount of the petitioner has also said to be adjusted towards the alleged defalcation amount.

(2.) Mr. A. Sahay appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner's case does not come under the Pension Rules as contained in Rule 43(a) or (b).

(3.) Rule 43 runs as follow:-