SHEO PRASAD PATHAK Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH THE CAMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 27 October, 2009 passed in W.P. (S) no. 2626 of 2003, whereby learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition, which had been filed by the petitioner/appellant, challenging the order dated 22nd February, 2003 issued by the Government of Bihar under which a decision was taken to recover an amount of Rs. 33,76 lacs from the pensionary benefits of the appellant, such as pension, gratuity, etc. That apart his full pension was also ordered to be forfeited. This order was passed pursuant to a (departmental enquiry holding the appellant guilty of the charge of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 33,76 lacs and further for a sum of Rs. 85,786/ -.

(2.) THE departmental proceeding, admittedly, had been initiated against the appellant while he was still in service as a Range Officer in the department of Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar and the petitioner/appellant had been put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The departmental proceeding did not conclude while the appellant was in service, but finally it concluded when the appellant superannuated from the service. The petitioner/appellant duly participated in the enquiry proceeding and availed of full opportunity to contest the charges, which have been levelled against him and after scrutiny and adjudication of the charges, the enquiry report was submitted on 23rd July, 1999, wherein the charges against the petitioner/appellant regarding defalcation and misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 33,76 lacs and also for a sum of Rs. 85,786/ - was held to have been proved on the basis of the materials on record. Consequently, the order dated 22nd February, 2003, referred to herein before, was passed against the appellant, wherein a decision was taken to recover the defalcated amount of Rs. 33,76 lacs from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner/appellant, which included the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits, as already recorded herein before. The full pension was also ordered to be forfeited.

(3.) THE appellant, feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, has preferred this appeal in support of which first of all it was contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the pensionary benefit of the appellant could not have been forfeited beyond the period of three years from the date of sanction of the pension, as Rule 139(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules envisages that no order can be passed forfeiting pension beyond the period of three years from the date of its sanction and, as the order sanctioning pension was passed on 28 July, 1999, the subsequent order forfeiting pension could not have been passed, The counsel had Initially submitted that the order forfeiting the pension itself was bad in the eye of law which we find difficult to agree with as the order forfeiting pension has been passed after full -fledged enquiry in which the appellant had duly participated and the order of punishment also could not be held to be disproportionate, as the amount which has been proved to be defalcated is a huge amount of Rs. 33,76 lacs, which would have taken long years for the appellant to earn as pensionary benefits.