LAL BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing Office Order dated 06-04-2010, contained in Memo No. 1320 dated 06-04-2010, issued under the signature of Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna (Annexure - 1 to the writ petition). By the said order, the disciplinary authority directed to withheld 50% pension of the petitioner.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that the petitioner was proceeded departmentally on an allegation that while functioning as Junior Engineer in Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar in between 1993 and 1996, he had committed certain misconduct. The proceeding was initiated, vide office order contained in Memo No. 7948 dated 22-10-2005 (Annexure - 2 to the writ petition), which was enclosed with the memo of charge. The petitioner was proceeded regarding four charges. In the departmental proceeding, petitioner participated and submitted his show cause reply. The conducting officer, after conducting detailed departmental enquiry, did not find any material to prove any of the charges against the petitioner and thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted its report exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. During pendency of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 31-05-2007. After about two years of the retirement of the petitioner, the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Secretary-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Patna, vide it memo no. 913 (E) dated 23-03-2009 (Annexure - 6 to the writ petition), converted the departmental proceeding under Rule 43 (b) Bihar Pension Rules and thereafter, vide letter dated 12-11-2009 (Annexure - 7 to the writ petition), the petitioner was served with the second show cause notice. Since the disciplinary authority considered that charge no. 4 against the petitioner was proved, the petitioner was asked to file his second show cause within a period of 15 days. The petitioner thereafter filed his reply to the second show cause notice giving detail to substantiate that neither charge no. 4 was proved nor the charge no. 4 was sufficient for converting the proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. However, the disciplinary authority, by order impugned i.e. order dated 06-04-2010, passed punishment order to the extent of forfeiture of 50% of the pension, which has been assailed in the present writ petition.

(3.) Sri Rupak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the disciplinary authority i.e. Annexure - 1 to the writ petition on number of grounds. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge itself was stale one, since the allegation was made against the petitioner regarding his misconduct during the period of 1993 and 1996. It has been argued that while the petitioner was at the verge of retirement, the petitioner was maliciously proceeded departmentally and proceeding was initiated in the year 2005, whereas, the petitioner was to superannuate w.e.f. 31-05-2007. It has been argued that the disciplinary authority has not recorded tentative reasons for differing with the enquiry report. Only in a vague manner, the disciplinary authority has tried to justify the reason for differing with the enquiry report, whereas no such plausible reason has been assigned by the disciplinary authority while differing with the enquiry report. He has further argued that even in the second show cause notice, it was necessary to indicate proposed punishment, however; in the present case, neither plausible reason was assigned by the disciplinary authority in differing with the enquiry report nor any indication was given as to what punishment was to be imposed against the petitioner. To substantiate his submission, Sri Rupak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on paragraph 15 and 17 of a case reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 84 (Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra) It would be appropriate to just quote paragraph 15 and 17 of the judgment, which are as follows:-