STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. JITENDRA PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.A.V. On 27.01.2014 Pronounced on 31.01.2014 In this Letters Patent Appeal challenged to order dated 19.09.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3019 of 2011 is confined to the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules which reads as under :

(2.) The respondent herein (writ petitioner) was inducted in the State Police Service and he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 29.07.2003, he was transferred to Transport Department and by order dated 31.12.2005 his service was returned to his parent department. A departmental proceeding was decided to be initiated against the respondent and consequently, Resolution dated 22.05.2009 was issued. The inquiry officer submitted the report in which four charges out of five charges, i.e. except charge no. 4, were found proved. A second show-cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner and the final order withholding his 50% pension was passed on 31.12.2010. In the meantime, the respondent had superannuated from service w.e.f. 30.11.2009. Aggrieved, the respondent moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3019 of 2011 which was allowed by order dated 19.09.2012 holding that sub-Rule (b) of Rule 43 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules can be pressed in service for withholding in full or in part, pension of an 4 employee only when the Government has "suffered pecuniary loss on account of misconduct, negligence or omission on his/her part" and since no pecuniary loss was suffered by the Government on account of alleged misconduct of the writ petitioner, order dated 19.09.2012 was liable to be quashed.

(3.) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Government Advocate has contended that, by the impugned order dated 19.09.2012, the scope of Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules has been restricted in as much as, it has been held that it can be invoked only in cases of pecuniary loss suffered by the Government, which on a plain reading of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules was not intended by the framers of the Rules. Stressing on explanation to Rule 43 (b), the learned counsel contends that the situations contemplated under Rule 43 (b) includes, judicial proceeding which can either be a criminal proceeding or a civil proceeding, as also departmental proceeding in which a delinquent employee has been found guilty of grave misconduct. Referring to Rule 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand contended that the State Government is competent to revise an order of pension, if the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or if there was proof of grave misconduct on his part, while in service.5