BINDESWARI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. From the records of this L. P. A. it appears that after dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant by order under appeal dated december 4, 1998, the appellant preferred the civil Review bearing No. 12/1999 which was dismissed by a short order dated July 19, 1999 (Annexure-22 ). Initially the appellant preferred l. P. A. No. 975/1999 against the aforesaid order dated July 19, 1999. That L. P. A. was dismissed by a short order dated February 9, 2000 (Annexure-23) on the ground that appellant had not preferred any appeal and had not challenged the judgment and order dated December 4, 1998 whereby the writ Court had dismissed the writ petition. However, the Division Bench observed that the order dated February 9, 2000 dismissing L. P. A. No. 975/1999 will not prevent the appellant from preferring an appeal against the judgment and order of which the review was declined. Thereafter the appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated September 24, 1997 whereby the State Government in the Department of water Resources withheld 100 per cent gratuity and pension of the petitioner permanently. The appellant also prayed for quashing of another letter dated June 17, 1998 through amendment petition, whereby petitioner was asked to submit show-cause as to why action be not taken against him in terms of Rule 139 of the bihar Pension Rules for fixing his pension and gratuity at zero level on account of charges found proved in the departmental proceeding.

(2.) THE writ Court noticed the relevant facts including the fact that petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer on October 7, 1966 and after serving for sometime he was promoted as Executive Engineer and ultimately superannuated on January 31, 1997. It was noticed that in course of service the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Irrigation division, Giridih on December 23, 1986 and from there he was transferred and posted as executive Engineer, Master Planning Division, daltonganj on June 11, 1990. While he was posted as Executive Engineer at Daltonganj he was placed under suspension in anticipation of a departmental enquiry and ultimately subjected to a departmental proceeding. After some time the suspension order was quashed on the ground of delay in the departmental proceeding. The petitioner received charge-sheets dated May 2, 1991 on June 13, 1991. The disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner led to an order of punishment dated may 18, 1993 against him and it included punishment of censure and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The said order was challenged by the appellant/ petitioner through C. W. J. C. No. 942/1994. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated March 23, 1995 whereby this Court did not interfere with the punishment of censure but quashed the other punishment on the ground that such punishment was a major punishment which required a detailed enquiry contemplated under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and the Court was satisfied that adequate opportunity as required by that rule had not been given to the delinquent employee. However, while setting aside the order withholding increments the Court observed that it will be open for the department to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

(3.) IN view of the observation noticed above a fresh memo of charges was served upon the petitioner on May 20, 1995 and after enquiry in which the appellant/petitioner participated, an enquiry report dated January 17, 1996 (Annexure-19) was submitted. The disciplinary authority issued a second show-cause notice dated November 23, 1996 to which the appellant replied on January 17, 1997. Thereafter, the appellant superannuated from service on January 31, 1997. Thereafter the order of punishment dated September 24, 1997 was passed by the disciplinary authority. That order which was Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that the disciplinary authority tad applied its mind to the earlier order of the court containing the observation on the basis whereof the proceeding under Rule 55 was initiated. On examining the enquiry report the disciplinary authority found that the charge against the petitioner had been found proved and hence second show-cause notice had been issued and reply of the petitioner to that show-cause notice was also considered and the charge was again found proved. According to the disciplinary authority the charge found proved showed that D. K. Headlines contractor had furnished forged bank guarantee but no information of the same was given to higher authorities and Rs. 14,34,725/- had been paid in spite of bank guarantee being forged. The disciplinary authority was of the view that if the petitioner had continued in service he would have deserved dismissal from service but for the said gross misconduct now punishment was being awarded under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar pension Rules.