SOHAN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was in the services of the State, retired on 31st January, 1998 from the post of Panchayat Sevak. He having not received the retiral benefits has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that no proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 was initiated against the petitioner, nor any notice under Rule 139 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 was given to him. The respondent -Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has no jurisdiction to initiate any departmental proceeding after the retirement of petitioner either for the purpose of punishment or for the purpose of withheldment of retiral benefits as has been made vide Memo No. 146 dated 8th March. 2002.

(3.) IT appears that the petitioner was suspended vide Memo 301, dated 19th December, 1990 (Annexure -3) on the allegation that he secured job on the basis of a forged certificate. Thereafter, though order of suspension was revoked but the proceeding did not reach finality till the petitioner superannuated from service as a criminal case was also lodged against the petitioner for similar charges.