AJIT KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged order dated 14.12.2002 whereby an order for recovery of Rs. 1,42,96,110.42 / - has been ordered from the retiral benefits as well as from his movable and immovable properties. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 26.12.2002 by which payment of gratuity to the petitioner has been stopped.

(2.) THE petitioner superannuated from the post of Divisional Forest Officer, State Trading Division with effect from 30th November, 1994. Two days after his superannuation, a criminal case under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 23.11.1996 and one Sri Rabindra Kumar, Conservator of Forest, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The departmental proceeding continued ex -parte and enquiry report dated 05.10.1999 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner moved the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1087 of 2000 (R) which was allowed on 22.02.2001 setting -aside the order passed in ex -parte departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer was directed to hold a fresh enquiry after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As the petitioner was not paid pension etc., he had to move the High Court again. In the departmental proceeding also inspite of repeated request, the petitioner was not provided documents which would be apparent from orders dated 07.06.2001, 23.06.2001, 21.07.2001 etc. Finally, order dated 14.12.2002 was passed whereby the entire pension and gratuity of the petitioner was withdrawn and a further direction was issued to recover the balance amount from the Provident Fund, Leave Encashment and movable and immovable properties of the petitioner. The said order has been passed in purported exercise of power under Rule 43 (a) and (b) of the Pension Rules. By order dated 22.02.2002, the gratuity of the petitioner was forfeited in the light of order dated 14.12.2002. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court again.

(3.) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.