STATE OF BIHAR Vs. DINESH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Bihar has preferred this appeal in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, and is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated, 25th August, 1999, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11619 of 1998 (Dinesh Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors.), whereby the Writ Petition was allowed and the separate Orders passed under Rules, 43(b) and 139(a)(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "1950 Rules"), imposing punishment of deprivation of pension to the extent of 50 per cent for a period of five years, have been set aside.

(2.) We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the Writ Petition. A brief statement of facts is essential for the disposal of this appeal. The Writ Petitioner (the Respondent herein) was posted as an Executive Engineer in the Bagmati Nagar Project, Sitamarhi, which was then under the Irrigation Department, and has since 1988 been converted into the Department of Water Resources. The Petitioner was so posted from 7th January, 1978 to 3rd July, 1981. The State Government received adverse reports with respect to the working of different irrigation projects and/or anti -flood measures during the period 1980 -87. A vigilance enquiry was conducted which had submitted it report on 2nd January, 1987. This was followed by an enquiry by the Finance (Audit) team, and the report was submitted on 15th November, 1990. The reports prima facie showed complicity of the Petitioner and 32 other functionaries, who had been posted there during that period. Accordingly, memo of charges dated, 21st November, 1992, was served on the Petitioner for appropriate action in terms of Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the "1930 Rules"). 2.1 The Petitioner had provisionally submitted his cause on 11th February, 1993 (Annexure -2), wherein it was stated that the events were alleged to have taken place more than 12 years ago and, therefore, it is not possible to submit an exhaustive show -cause without inspection of the relevant records. He further stated that the provisional show cause was being submitted on the basis of his re -collection. He had further stated that he had already received letter dated, 20th January, 1993, offering him inspection of the original records but eventually he was denied inspection thereof. The Petitioner superannuated with effect from 31st December, 1994, from the services of the Bihar Government, while functioning as Superintending Engineer. 2.2 By Order dated, 13th August, 1998 of the State Government, the proceedings under Rule 55A of 1930 Rules were converted into one under Rule 43(b) of 1950 Rules. On a consideration of the materials on record, the State Government passed the impugned Order dated, 10th September, 1998 (Annexure -6), whereby the Petitioner has been deprived of his pension to the extent of 50 per cent for a period of five years from the date of the Order. This was followed by another show -cause dated, 11th February, 1999 (Annexure -8), from the Respondent authorities to the Petitioner calling him upon to show -cause as to why appropriate Order reducing his pension in terms of Rule 139(a) (b) be not passed. The Petitioner had sent his communication dated, 27th February, 1999 (Annexured -9), wherein he had stated that the matter may await decision in the present C.W.J.C. No. 11619 of 1998, notwithstanding which the State Government passed the Order dated, 3rd May, 1999 (Annexure -7), whereby a like Order has been passed in terms of Rule 139(a) (b) of 1950 Rules.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the twin action against the Petitioner, he preferred the present C.W.J.C. No. 11619 of 1998, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the proceedings under Rule 43(b) was hit by the bar of limitation engrafted in Rule 43(b). It has secondly been held that the Respondent authorities have taken inordinately long time in passing the impugned Order. It has further been held that the Petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the Departmental proceeding. The impugned Order does not state reasons for the punishment. Consequently, both the Orders have been quashed.