BALRAM PRASAD Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

(2.) The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the Resolution no.3093 dated 04.06.2013 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of the respondent no.3 whereby a punishment of withholding of 3% of pension permanently has been imposed upon the petitioner in exercise of powers under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The petitioner has further challenged the Resolution no.4015 dated 16.07.2013 (Annexure-10), whereby 2% of permanent deduction from pension has been imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 139(C) of the Bihar Pension Rules and also for a direction upon the respondents to pay the balance amount of pension, full gratuity, full leave salary and other consequential retiral benefits with statutory and penal interest @ 18% per annum from the date of such dues till the date of actual payment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are two impugned orders which are annexed as Annexure-9 & 10 to the writ application. Vide Annexure-9 the petitioner has been imposed punishment of withholding of 3% pension permanently in exercise of powers under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Whereas, vide Annexure-10 the petitioner has been imposed punishment for 2% of permanent deduction from pension under Rule 139(C) of the Bihar Pension Rules. For the first impugned order as contained in Annexure-9 dated 04.06.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 23.12.2010 (Annexure-6); the Disciplinary Authority, without issuing any show cause notice by giving reasons for differing with the view of the Inquiry Officer, issued a second show-cause notice under 43(b) dated 05.10.2012 as the petitioner retired from his service way back on 31.05.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Annexure-9 is bad in law on two accounts. Firstly, the riders as imposed under 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rule has not been complied with inasmuch as the cause of action for the alleged charge was with respect to May, 1995 to 21.7.1998 whereas the notice under 43(b) has been issued on 05.10.2012. His next contention with respect to this punishment is that the punishment is also bad in law inasmuch as no show-cause notice was given to him before differing with the opinion of the Inquiry Officer as the Inquiry Officer has already exonerated the petitioner. In order to buttress his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Lav Nigam Vs. Chairman & MD ITI Ltd. & Anr., 2006 9 SCC 440 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law for issuing a show-cause notice by the disciplinary authority, if he differs with the view of Enquiry Officer.