BHUBANESHWAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A superannuated employee of the Government of Bihar has preferred this Writ Petition for a direction to quash the Order bearing Memo No. 384, dated, 24th January, 1998 (Annexure -8), passed in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), whereby his pension and gratuity to the extent of 100 per cent has been withheld for ever. The Petitioner also seeks to set aside the Order bearing Memo No. 396, dated, 27th January, 1998 (Annexure -9), issued by the State Government, whereby the pre -existing proceeding has been directed to be converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the Rules, and also for the consequential relief of payment of pensionary benefits admissible to the Petitioner.

(2.) A brief narration of facts essential for the disposal of this Writ Petition may be indicated. The Petitioner had joined the services of the Bihar Government as Assistant Engineer way back in 1965. He was posted in the Minor Irrigation Department at Biharsharif during the period 1980 to 23rd August, 1989. The State Government lodged a First information report against the Petitioner alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 479, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered as Murarpur RS. Case No. 501 of 1989. The Petitioner was placed under suspension on 24th December, 1992. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the self -same charges by Order dated, 24th March, 1993 (Annexure -3 and 3/A).The departmental proceeding remained pending, the Petitioner languished in the state of suspension leading to C. W.J.C. No. 4336 of 1994 at his instance. The same was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by Judgment dated, 27th September, 1996 (Annexure -4), whereby the Respondent Authorities were directed to dispose of the departmental proceedings expeditiously, failing which the Order of suspension was to stand automatically revoked after expiry of a period of six months. It appears that the enquiry report has already been submitted on 1st September, 1995, leading to issuance of second Show Cause Notice dated, 16th January, 1996 (Annexurre -5), informing him that, in view of the findings in the enquiry report, the State Government was minded to inflict appropriate punishment on him. He was, therefore, called upon to submit his cause within a period of 15 days as to why appropriate punishment be not imposed on him. It was stated in the said communication dated, 16th January, 1996 (Annexure -5), that the enquiry report had been submitted on 1st September, 1995.

(3.) THE Respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the findings of the enquiry report adverse to the Petitioner have not been challenged before this Court. The Petitioner 'sentire emphasis is on the alleged irregularity and illegality of the proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Rules. He next submits that a pre -existing proceeding could automatically stand converted into one under Rule 43(b) and does not need specific Order of this Court. He relied on the Judgment reported in The State of Bihar and Ors. V/s. Bipin Bihari Prasad and Anr., 2004 4 PLJR 459. He lastly submits that some delay has taken place in the present case but, in view of the undenied findings in the enquiry report, it would not be in the interest of justice to interfere with the impugned action.