STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BHOLAN CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Respondents. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar and its officials against the judgment and order dated 10.9.1999 passed by a Single Bench in exercise of writ jurisdiction whereby order of punishment dated 10.10.1998 against the writ petitioner withholding 100 per cent pension for one year under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was quashed.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the writ court has proceeded to grant relief to the writ petitioner on the basis of an understanding of law relating to proceeding against retired employee which existed prior to Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of Shambhu Sharan V/s. State of Bihar, 2000 1 PLJR 665. The view taken by the writ court was that the proceeding continuing against a Government servant can continue against him even after retirement only if an order to continue such proceeding is passed prior to retirement of the concerned Government servant otherwise as an employer, State forfeits the right to continue the pending proceeding and must be bound by the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules if it chooses to initiate a fresh proceeding under the aforesaid provision under the Bihar Pension Rules.

(3.) HOWEVER , the Full Bench judgment has now made the law clear that no specific order is required to continue a pending proceeding against a Government servant even after his retirement. If the requirement of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules warrant, the State Government may continue a proceeding against a Government servant even after his retirement and for that no specific or express order is required. Thus, in view of law laid down by the Full bench the reasons given by the writ court for allowing the writ petition is clearly no longer valid and ordinarily this appeal should have been allowed. However, we were taken through the facts of the case and particularly the findings given by the disciplinary authority in the order of punishment to show that there is no finding that the writ petitioner is guilty of grave misconduct or even misconduct or that he has caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence. The order of punishment dated 10.10.1998 has been annexed as Annexure -R/3 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the writ petitioner in this appeal. That order was Annexure -1 to the writ petition which has been quashed by the writ court. A perusal of that order shows that on examining the show cause submitted by the writ petitioner the following charge has been found proved against him: - Those bills which had not been placed before the Liability Committee were again forwarded to the higher authorities for an amount of Rs.12 Lacs on receipt of a legal notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. When the Liability Committee had already made payment of Rs. 56 Lacs then forwarding such bills without full scrutiny and as a result whereof Rs. 8.47 Lacs had to be paid later on.