RAJENDRA GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order dated 29.11.2007 whereby the pension and gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially appointed on 19.7.1963. He has superannuated from service on 31st January, 2001. The petitioner was posted as Head Clerk in Frozen Cement Bank, Hotwar, Ranchi at the relevant time, when he was implicated in a criminal case which was registered in the fodder scam cases. The petitioner was granted bail in the said criminal case i.e., R.C. 5 (A) of 2000. Finally on 15.4.2006, the petitioner was convicted by the IVth Additional Judicial. Commissioner -cum -Special Judge No.2, C.B.I. (A.H.D. Scam), Ranchi. The petitioner preferred criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 691 of 2006 (S.J.) and he was released on bail by order dated 23.7.2007. It appears that after the conviction of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 29.11.2007 was passed by respondent No.1. The sole ground taken in the impugned order i.e., order dated 29.11.2007 is the conviction of the petitioner in the Criminal Case No. RC. 5(A) of 2000. Admittedly, no proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, a plea has been taken that in terms of Rule 43 of Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, the petitioner's pensionary benefit was liable to be withdrawn permanently because the petitioner's future conduct has been affected by the conviction in the criminal case.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that without initiating any proceeding under Rule 43 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner could not have been withdrawn by the respondents. No show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order; dated 29.11.2007 nor any proceeding as provided under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules was ever initiated by the respondents against the petitioner. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that conviction of the petitioner in the criminal case is a good ground for withdrawing/withholding his pensionary benefits. Charges against the petitioner are grave and therefore, on consideration of the materials on record, it was decided by the competent authority to withdraw the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.