SYED HAFIZUL HASSAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the enquiry report submitted by the conducting officer in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner and also for quashing and setting aside the second show cause notice issued to the petitioner vide letter No. 174 dtd. 15/1/2014 on the ground that the entire departmental proceeding has been initiated against this petitioner after his retirement in violation of the provisions of Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules.

(3.) Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 31/7/2012 and at the time of his retirement, no departmental proceeding was pending against him. He further draws attention of this court towards the notification of the Government dtd. 19/3/2013 for taking action against this petitioner under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules (Annexure 9).