SUMANT PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for quashing the letter No. 253 dated 25.01.2017 by which the respondent No. 1 has withheld 3% pension of the petitioner herein. The further prayer is for payment of the full pension amount.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined the Registration Department on 16.07.1973 and thereafter, had rendered 42 years of service at various places as a Lower Division Clerk in the Registration Department. On 17.07.2014, at the fag end of his career, the petitioner had joined the Registry Office at Ara, whereafter he retired on 31.07.2015. The petitioner is stated to have been made in charge of the record room by an office order dated 27.09.2014 and ultimately, he retired peacefully on 31.07.2015, whereafter he was being paid the full pension amount. However, suddenly, he received a letter dated 27.01.2016 from the office of the District Additional Registrar, Bhojpur, Ara, wherein an allegation was levelled regarding tampering of the records. The said letter dated 27.01.2016 was replied to by the petitioner herein on 002016 stating that no tampering of record has been committed by him. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 had lodged an FIR bearing Ara (Nawada) PS case No. 219 of 2016 dated 04.02016 and then, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner herein by letter dated 14.06.2016 under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The petitioner had filed his show-cause reply and had pointed out about his eye problem regarding which evidence was also produced by the petitioner herein. It was also submitted by the petitioner in his show-cause reply that the entire work was being done by one Hasmat Hussain who was appointed by the department on contract basis to assist the petitioner herein on account of his eye problem.

(3.) The Inquiry Officer had submitted his inquiry report dated 22.09.2016 finding the charges to have been true whereafter, a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which, the petitioner had submitted his reply. The disciplinary authority, by the impugned order dated 25.01.2017, has inflicted the punishment of withholding of 3% pension, on the petitioner herein.