RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging an order dated 30th of Sept., 2014 issued by the Registrar General, Patna High Court, imposing punishment of withholding of 20% of pension payable to the petitioner permanently under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, this petition has been filed by the petitioner, a retired Additional District and Sessions Judge, who was posted in Gaya at the relevant point of time.

(2.) Facts, in brief, indicate that while the petitioner was working as an officer in the Bihar Judicial Service and was posted at Gaya from where he superannuated on 30th of May, 2014, it was found that in a case registered by Kotwali Police Station, Gaya being P.S. Case No.40 of 2008 for offences under Sections- 302, 341 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sec. 27 of the Indian Arms Act, petitioner granted bail to an accused Manoj @ Bulbul while sitting as a vacation judge on 16.10.201

(3.) Based on the complaint of the said act, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under the Discipline And Appeal Rules after preliminary enquiry into the matter and in the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 28.2.2014, based on the resolution of the Standing Committee of the High Court, it was alleged that bail petition was filed by the said accused in Sessions Trial No.66 of 2012 and bail was granted on 16.2.2012 to the accused by the petitioner whereas the High Court in Cr. Misc. No.10563 of 2009 on 20.8.2009 had cancelled the bail earlier granted to Manoj @ Bulbul on 25.11.2008 in Cr. Misc. No.38225 of 2008. It is alleged that in spite of the aforesaid fact, Manoj @ Bulbul has been granted bail, even though it was found by the High Court while cancelling the bail that some forged F.I.R. and document was used for obtaining the bail on 25.11.2009 and a report from the trial Court was called for. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation to the charge- sheet vide Annexure-3 on 12.5.2014 and explained the circumstances under which he had granted bail to the accused person. It was a detailed explanation by him and in para 6 it was indicated that on 16.2.2012 when the bail matter came up before him, it was informed that in the sessions trial the co-accused persons have been acquitted and as the nine were accused persons were acquitted in the criminal case, he was swayed by the aforesaid consideration and granted bail to the accused. After explaining the position on the basis of which bail was granted, the explanation submitted indicated that he admits, with utmost humility in his command, that he failed to notice the fact that the earlier bail of the accused was cancelled by the High Court and it can be a judicial impropriety on his part in granting bail based on the subsequent acquittal of the accused persons. It was also submitted in the explanation that he was sitting as a Vacation Judge and the regular Sessions Judge had not reported to the High Court with regard to surrender of the accused on 18.2012 etc. However, he submitted his unconditional apology for the same. The petitioner appeared before the Standing Committee along with the aforesaid application and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has submitted an unconditional apology, the Standing Committee imposed the punishment in question without conducting any enquiry into the matter.