BHARTI DEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties. The original petitioner, Milan Chandra Dey has been substituted by his widow, Smt. Bharti Dey on account of his death during the pendency of the writ petition. The instant writ petition has been preferred against part of the order dated 25.1.2008 passed by the Respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Lohardagga imposing punishment of reduction of 5% of the pension of the employee-original petitioner under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules w.e.f. 1.2.2008 and further that no salary for the period under suspension under Rule 97(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code be payable to the said petitioner.

(2.) The short fact of the case is that the petitioner was employed as Head Assistant in legal section under the respondent no. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Lohardagga wherefrom he superannuated on 31.1.2008. On account of a complaint a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the charges of having demanded bribe of Rs. 1,10,000/-. After conclusion of the inquiry the inquiry report was submitted vide Annexure-2 dated 14.11.2006, wherein, although it was recorded that employee had confessed his crime before the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner on 27.3.2006, but during the course of departmental proceeding he made a plea that statements were obtained under duress. The inquiry officer, after discussing the material brought on record during the inquiry proceeding, observed that while there are no substantive proof of giving bribe to the employee, but the contradictory statements made by the delinquent give rise to enough suspicion that some illegal amount might have been received as extraneous consideration and recommended imposition of minor penalty. The Deputy Commissioner, being disciplinary authority, thereafter, by the impugned order dated 25.1.2008 proceeded to impose punishment observing that the Enquiry Officer has not exonerated the petitioner completely of the charges and, therefore, the suspension of the petitioner is revoked with immediate effect and imposed punishment under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules by reduction of 5% of the pension to take effect on 1.2.2008 and further that the employee would not be entitled to full salary for the period of his suspension.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order, so far as the imposition of reduction of 5% pension from the pension payable to the petitioner is concerned on the ground that petitioner was already in service on the date on which the order was passed and Rules under which he was proceeded against being Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 does not contemplate of any such punishment of reduction of pension as the same can only be done by invoking the relevant provision of the Pension Rules after the employee is retired.