KAMLA SHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was originally filed against an order contained in annexure 6 dated 20th November, 1992 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna by which 10 per cent pension and entire amount of gratuity of the petitioner was withheld on the ground of pendency of charges. Subsequently an amendment petition was allowed by order dated 16.9.97 passed on I.A.No. 4125 of 1997 through which the order dated 1.8.97 issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna as contained in annexure -12 by which in exercise of power under Rule 139 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules ') 5 per cent of petitioner 's pension has been finally withheld, has been challenged in this writ application.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of the writ application are, in short, as follows : - The petitioner was appointed on 4.1.1960 as sub -Deputy -Collector in the Bihar Administrative Service. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Collector in the year 1971 and to the post of Additional Collector in May 1983. While the petitioner was posted as Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Bettiah certain allegations of having committed illegality/irregularities with regard to appointments/ promotions of certain Class -Ill and Class -IV employees were levelled against him and a show cause notice was served upon him along with the charges to the aforesaid effect through a letter from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, dated 8.12.1983 (annexure -1). The petitioner submitted his show cause dated 13th July, 1984 as contained in annexure -4 and explained the charges mainly on the ground of prevailing past practice and tried to justify the appointments/ promotions made by him on ad hoc basis. Admittedly the said appointments/promotions had been cancelled by the appropriate authorities but it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that nine out of 46 such affected persons were later on found fit and given the appointments/promotions. The petitioner retired on 31st. December, 1991 and it is his case that till then no punishment or any adverse remarks was communicated to him and he presumed that after submission of his show cause in July, 1984 the allegations levelled against him must have been dropped.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as contained in annexure 12 and submitted that Rule 139 (b) of the Rules was not at all attracted in the case of the petitioner because no adverse remarks were ever communicated to him and hence it was not open to the respondents to allege and hold, after he had retired from service, that his service had not been thoroughly satisfactory. Under rule 139 (b) the authority sanctioning the pension has been given power to make such reduction in the amount it thinks proper if the service of the concerned employee has not been found thoroughly satisfactory. Such power as is apparent from the rules itself has to be exercised on the basis of service record of the concerned employee. Such a provision has been incorporated apparently to meet type of cases where a pensioner may not have been held guilty of grave misconduct or of having caused pecuniary loss to the Government but yet his service record itself is sufficient to draw an irresistible conclusion that his service had not been thoroughly satisfactory. Reduction of pension in a case of aforesaid nature is not only permissible under rule 139 (b) but is also desirable to keep government servant active and faithful in their duties so that their confidential reports may not be bad and of such a nature as to bring their case under threat of reduction of pension under rule 139 (b).