STATE OF BIHAR Vs. NARAYAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the petitioner -respondent was in Employment a letter dated 4th March, 1992 was written to him. In that it was stated that by reason of the decision taken by the petitioner -respondent the contractor was permitted to supply cast iron boxes instead of concrete boxes and in consequence thereof the State had to pay to the contractor an extra amount of Rs. 421.65/ - lacs. In the letter it was stated that unless the petitioner -respondent gives his reply to the said letter within ten days it would be presumed that the petitioner -respondent is not disputing the said contention, as contained in the said letter. Petitioner -respondent gave a reply to the said letter. Subsequent thereto petitioner -respondent retired from his service. Thereafter, an order was passed purporting to be under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and thereby 30% of the pension payable to the petitioner -respondent was reduced. Soon thereafter a notice was issued under Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 139 of the said Rules whereby and under it was contended that by reason of exercise of power under Rule 43(b) of the said Rules the services of the petitioner -respondent was found not to be satisfactory. Thereupon petitioner -respondent was accorded 69% of his pension and the remaining 31% of his Pension was withheld. The said action was challenged in the writ petition. It was contended by the petitioner -respondent that while he was in service no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and subsequent to his retirement no proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the said Rules was also initiated against him and, accordingly, the order passed purporting to be under Rule 43(b) of the said Rules is of no effect and that being the basis of reducing the pension of the petitioner -respondent to 69% the very action is unjustified. In the counter -affidavit filed, the appellants contended that by the letter dated 4th March, 1992, referred to above, a proceeding under Rule 55(a) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was initiated against the petitioner -respondent, while he was in service, and the said proceeding automatically stood converted into a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules after his retirement and the said proceeding was, ultimately, concluded by the order as was passed under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, felt that the letter dated 4th March, 1992 could not be said to have initiated any proceeding under Rule 55(a) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and, accordingly, the order purported to have been passed under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules cannot be said to be an order passed under the said Rule and that being the basis for reduction of the pension of the petitioner -respondent to 69%, the same cannot be sustained. Being aggrieved thereby the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) SUCH submission, if accepted, would compel us to read many a words which have not been written in the said letter. The letter said that by reason of the decision of the petitioner -respondent, the contractor became entitled to install cast iron boxes instead of concrete boxes which resulted in an extra payment of Rs. 421.65/ - lacs. That such extra payment was a loss to the employer or that the decision leading to such payment was a wrong or mala fide decision had not been spelt out. The letter did not indicate that the object thereof was to recover the extra payment said to have been made or any part thereof from the petitioner -respondent. In the circumstances, as has been held by the learned Single Judge, it cannot be said that the said letter dated 4th March, 1992 could initiate a proceeding contemplated by Rule 55(a) of the said Civil Services Rules. In the circumstances, there is no scope of interference. The appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.