MOHD WAKIL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate Writ commanding upon the respondents to pay all the retrial benefits, i.e. full pension, gratuity, General Provident Fund (GPF), Group Insurance, leave encasement etc. on account of superannuation of the petitioner on 31.1.1997. A further prayer has been made for quashing the departmental proceeding which has been initiated against the petitioner by order dated 13.2.1997 under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules' for short).

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he retired on 31.1.1997 while working as Village Level Worker in the Burmu Block, Ranchi. Further, the petitioner has submitted all the papers before his retirement, but even after lapse of six months no payment has been made, except 75% of the provisional pension which was paid in the month of May, 1997.

(3.) A counter, affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents justifying the continuation of the departmental proceeding on the ground that the petitioner was suspended in August, 1989, on account of charges of misconduct for defalcation of Government fund, and therefore, a departmental proceeding was initiated and charge sheet was issued on 12.10.1990. It is stated that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner had already commenced before the date of superannuation from 31.1.1997 in view of the Government instruction as contained in paragraph 3 of the Letter No. 20233 dated 8.11.1978 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Bihar, Patna, a copy of which is Annexure C to the counter affidavit. It is further stated that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner had been initiated when the petitioner was already in service and the same has been allowed to continue in terms of Rule 43 (b) of the Rules by order as contained in Memo No. 248 (II) dated 13.2.1997 and it is not a fresh proceeding drawn under Section 43 (b) of the said Rules. It is further stated that it is not an initiation of a departmental proceeding afresh and, therefore, it is not in any way contrary to the provision of Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules.