GURUSHARAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING not received his retiral benefits, upon his superannuation with effect from 31.1.2000, while working as Incharge Deputy Director of Mines under the respondents in the pay scale of District Mining Officer, in spite of having submitted his pension papers and representations, petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 431 of 2003 for a direction for payment of his dues, only to be surprised by the counter affidavit of the respondents, enclosing the order contained in Memo no.603 dated 27.3.2002 reducing 25% of his pension as punishment upon conclusion of a departmental proceeding, necessitating filing of C.W.J.C. No. 4768 of 2003 challenging the memo by annexing the same as Annexure -12 to the writ application. During the pendency of the second writ application, respondents also issued orders, as contained in memo no. 2398 dated 26.11.2004 reverting back petitioner to the post of Assistant Mining Officer in purported exercise of powers under Rule 49(1) of Service Rules [Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules], and consequential fixation of pay scale and pension of the petitioner by the accountant general in proforma dated 11.1.2005 and 24.2.2005, which have been brought on record by the petitioner as Annexures -13, 14 and 14/1 through I.A. No. 4308 of 2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 4768 of 2003, with a prayer to amend the reliefs sought for in the writ application with liberty to challenge the same also.

(2.) AS the orders, as contained in Annexures -13, 14 and 14/1 are sequel to punishment inflicted upon the petitioner in the departmental proceeding and in continuity of the main impugned order contained in Annexure -12, I.A. No. 4308 of 2007 is allowed. Petitioner is granted liberty to challenge Annexure -13 as well as 14 and 14/1 and writ application is held to be modified to the extent prayed for by the petitioner in the I.A.

(3.) PETITIONER filed his reply vide Annexure -2 to the writ application stating therein, besides his detailed explanation to the charges, that except for the documentary evidence mentioned at serial no. 9 in the charge -sheet, he has not received any other documentary evidence referred to and relied upon in the charge - sheet nor has he received the report and statement of said Sub - Inspector. In his reply, petitioner stated that on the basis of his memory he was replying to the charges but the documents mentioned in the charge -sheet should be supplied to him to enable him to submit his reply effectively. In his reply petitioner enclosed several documents which were available to him and cited names of the witnesses whom he wanted to be examined in the departmental proceeding. However, without acceding to the request of the petitioner, enquiry proceeded and the enquiry officer on conclusion of the enquiry submitted his report through his letter dated 18.6.1990 to the higher authorities, as contained in Annexure -3 to the writ application. The letter of the enquiry officer, who was Deputy Director of Mines under the respondents, in very uncertain terms mentioned that in spite of his request, the relevant records were not made available by the Department in the enquiry causing difficulty in coming to a just conclusion in the enquiry. However, on the basis of the materials available in the enquiry and as produced by the petitioner, he had proceeded with the enquiry and after concluding the same had submitted his report. In his report, which is enclosure to the said letter dated 18.6.1990 and part of Annexure -3 to the writ application, the enquiry officer dealt with the charges one by one and, considering the materials on record and the explanations of the petitioner, found all the seven charges against the petitioner as not proved and in respect of each and every charge he recommended for exonerating the petitioner.