RAM ANUGRAH NARAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner after his superannuation on 30.9.1973 praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 30.11.1983 whereby his 10% pension has been deducted as also against the order dated 29.5.1933 whereby his memorial petition against the said order of deduction was rejected as also against the rejection of his representation which was filed against the rejection of the memorial of the petitioner.

(2.) VARIOUS facts have been stated in this writ petition but the facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are noted below: It appears that the petitioner was transferred to Chapra by an order dated 15.11.1976 on which there were some dispute. The petitioner's case is that the said order of transfer was passed within two years of the petitioner's retirement. The petitioner applied for leave as at the relevant point of time he was unwell. The petitioner received a registered letter on 23.7.1977 from the then Commercial Taxes Commissioner asking the petitioner to give clarification on 12 points within 15 days and to explain why disciplinary proceeding be not taken against him. The petitioner gave his clarification on the 12 points by his reply dated 14.8.1977. In the said reply the petitioner asked for various papers and also prayed for an opportunity to adduce evidence. The petitioner further prayed for extending his leave by letter dated

(3.) 10.1977 and the petitioner submitted a supplementary clarification by his letter dated 30.10.1977. Thereafter the petitioner did not receive any communication and retired from service on 30.9.1978. Suddenly the petitioner received a communication on 28.5.1981 from the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes -cum -Special Secretary, Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department, Bihar wherein it was stated that considering the clarification made by the petitioner, the authority found the allegation against the petitioner about carelessness in the government work, indiscipline and suspicious conduct etc. having been proved and the State Government has decided to deduct 10% of the pension of the petitioner and if the petitioner had any clarification to give, he will do so within 15 days. Thereafter the petitioner gave his reply dated 13.6.1981 within the stipulated period denying the allegation and stated therein that no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner nor was the petitioner afforded any reasonable opportunity to know the facts and explain the same. The petitioner also specifically stated that the decision about the deduction of 10% pension is a punishment and the same has been inflicted upon him without following tile provisions of rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rule., 1950 and also without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter a detailed order was passed on 30.11.1983 i.e. more than after two years of the petitioner's reply vide Government of Bihar, finance (Commercial Taxes) Department Memo No. 1636/C dated 30.11.1983 and in the said order it was stated that after examination of tile clarification given by the petitioner in the inquiry report of one Sri Ramdas Sinha, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna, the State Government has come to the conclusion that charge Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 11 out of 12 charge have been proved. Those charges are indicative of the petitioner's carelessness, indiscipline and doubtful Conduct of the petitioner and, therefore, the State Government under the provisions of rule 139 of the Bihar pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) has decided to deduct 10% of the pension of the petitioner. The said order which is at Annexnre -14 is the subject matter of challenge in this proceeding. It has already been noted that against the said order the petitioner filed memorial and representations. Now the question which falls for decision in this case is whether the said order which is at Annexure -14 is legally sustainable or not. 3. In the counter affidavit which has been filed in this case by the respondents, it has been stated that while the petitioner was posted at Dhanbad, he committed several illegal acts relating to indiscipline, lacking in truthfulness and violation of the order of the superior authority and a letter dated 23 -7 -1977 mentioning the allegation was served upon the petitioner asking for an explanation. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted, his explanation and was allowed to inspect the documents and thereafter filed a supplementary clarification. It has also been stated that after submission of the supplementary explanation by the petitioner the matter was considered thoroughly by the Department and it was found that the allegation mentioned in charge nos.