JAGDHARI ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under , Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Government of Bihar in the Department , of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry - (Annexure XIII) directing the entry of "severe censures" in the confidential character roll of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Range Assistant Engineer in the Bihar Agricultural Service, after having been appointed in 1944. On the 13th September, 1957, the Government of Bihar became aware of the fact that large sums of money, quite disproportionate to the income of the petitioner, were deposited on various dates, extending from September, 1947, to April, 1953, in some, of the Banks to the credit of the petitioner and his wife. A preliminary enquiry was held, and he was called upon to explain hew he came in possession of such sums of money. He gave some sort of explanation; but this was not accepted, and, on the 4th April, 1959, the Government of Bihar decided to draw up regular departmental proceedings against him (Annexure IV). The alleged act of misconduct was said to consists in voilation of Sub -rule (5) of Rule 15 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, which is as follows: A Government servant found to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known, sources of income, for which he cannot satisfactorily account, shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been guilty of grave misconduct in the discharge of his official duty. Enquiry was held according to law. The petitioner was given an opportunity to have his say, and, ultimately, the enquiring officer, by his report dated the 20th February, 1961 (Annexure IX), held that the petitioner was guilty of the contravention of the said sub -rule, and recommended that he should be. either permanently debarred from promotion or his increment should be stopped for four years. The second notice, asking him to show cause why the proposed punishment may not be imposed, was also issued. He was placed under suspension from the 7th November, 1959. On the 12th March, 1965, the order of suspension was withdrawn, and the Government allowed him to retire from service on his attaining the 55th year, which was the normal date for superannuation (Annexure XII). I may quote the relevant portion of the Government order:

(3.) Mr. R.S. Sinha for the petitioner urged the following grounds in support of his contention that the impugned order is invalid: (i) The order of the Government retiring the petitioner from service dated the 12th March, 1965 (Annexure XII), must he deemed to be an order of compulsory retirement, and, as such, an order of punishment in the departmental proceeding. Hence, the Government had no jurisdiction to impose double punishment by way of awarding censure more than a year thereafter. (ii) There is no power in the Government to pass any order of punishment on a Government servant after he has retired from Service. (iii) Sub -rule (5) of Rule 15 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules came into force after 1956. The accumulations, disproportionate to the assets of the petitioner, were alleged to have been made prior to that date. The said sub -rule cannot be given retrospective effect, and hence the authorities committed an error of law in holding the petitioner guilty of contravention of that sub -rule. These grounds will be dealt with in turn.