RAM RAJ RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the validity of the order dated 16 -8 -1996 contained in Annexure -1, whereby and whereunder he has been inflicted punishment of deduction of 10% of his pension every month.

(2.) In short, the facts are that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner while in service vide order dated 12 -9 -1988 as contained in Annexure -3 to this writ petition. Before conclusion of the said proceeding, the petitioner was allowed to superannuate on 31 -1 -1991. However, later inquiry report was submitted and an order of punishment was also passed, validity of which was challenged by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 596 of 1994 on the ground that he was not given reasonable opportunity to produce document to defend his case. This Court vide order dated 7 -2 -1995 contained in Annexure -10 allowed the said writ petition and quashed the inquiry report as well as the impugned order of punishment. However, this Court directed that the Inquiry Officer may proceed with the enquiry afresh in accordance with law after supplying the copies of the documents to the petitioner and giving him reasonable opportunity to lead evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with show cause notice by letter No. 430 dated 4 -6 -1996 contained in Annexure -20 against the proposed punishment. The petitioner submitted show cause and raised various objections including that he was not supplied with the copies of the relevant documents nor he was given any opportunity of hearing. However, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order (Annexure -1) on the basis of the findings recorded in the said proceeding, purporting to be in exercise of the power under Rules 139 and 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in fact there was no proceeding initiated in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules since after retirement of the petitioner on 31 -1 -1991 nor he was ever served with any notice under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules and that the petitioner has also been denied with reasonable opportunity, as he was not supplied with the copies of the relevant documents and also the opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order.