PARIMAL CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Officer on 02.10.1957 and after attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner superannuated from the post of Regional Director, Santhal Pargana Range, Dumka with effect from 31.12.1990. After superannuation of the petitioner, respondent authorities paid retiral dues to the petitioner and pension of the petitioner has been fixed vide Pension Payment Order of the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna with effect from 01.01.1991 and the same is being paid regularly to the petitioner. It is further contended that in the year 1996 one criminal case alleging fraudulent withdrawal from Chaibasa Treasury being Chaibasa Sadar P.S.Case No.23 of 1996 was lodged on 11.03.1996 and after being taken over by C.B.I re-registered as R.C.Case No.49A of 1996 (Pat). In the said criminal case, the petitioner has been made accused in the capacity of being District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa for the period from 11.08.1983 to 14.01.1986 with the allegation that the petitioner facilitated fraudulent payment/withdrawal from the treasury. Finally, after contest the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 28.01.2011 under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.11,00000/- passed by the learned court of Sessions Judge-IV, Ranchi. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.110 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court which has been admitted and the petitioner has been enlarged on bail during the pendency of appeal. The said criminal appeal is still pending for consideration before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. After passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner had been issued a notice contained in Memo No.160 dated 16.06.2016 (Annexure- 3 to the writ petition) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been served a show cause as to why a proceeding under Rule 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules be not initiated in view of the fact that he has been convicted in a criminal case involving fraudulent withdrawal from the Govt. Treasury which amounts to misconduct. Petitioner replied to the show cause on 25.06.2016 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and after considering the reply of the petitioner, the respondents vide notification dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) had passed order whereby, it has been decided to withdraw the pension and gratuity of the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that petitioner has superannuated on 31.12.1990 and till the date of superannuation neither any departmental nor any criminal proceeding was initiated. It is only after lapse of six years of retirement, the criminal case was lodged against the petitioner and after 25 years of superannuation, the impugned order has been passed, which is absolutely illegal and unsustainable. In this connection, petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this High Court reported in 2017(3) PLJR page 79. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 43(a) of Bihar Pension Rules 1950 is not related to a conduct of pensioner during service or service rendered on re-employment, rather it is a conduct expected from a pensioner after his retirement that is to say, his future conduct.