UMA KANT TIWARY, SON OF LATE BASUDEO TIWARY, RESIDENT OF HARIDANGA BAZAR, PAKUR, P.O. & P.S. Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, PROJECT BUILDING, DHURWA, RANCHI, P.O. & P.S. DHURWA, DISTRICT RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing the notification dated 13.06.2012 and subsequent notice dated 28.06.2012 pertaining to initiation of proceeding under Rule 43-b of the Pension Rules and for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.06.2012.

(2.) The bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as Kanoongo-cum-Circle Inspector in the year 1974 and during in course of time, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Settlement Officer. The petitioner retired on 31.05.2009 as Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement from Government service when the post retiral benefits was not given to the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.2641 of 2010 for payment of the same and the said writ petition was disposed of dated 02.05.2012 with a direction to respondents to consider the same in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order within a period of six weeks thereafter and it was directed that legally admissible dues with statutory interest paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is averred in the writ application, a notification dated 13.06.2012 has been issued by the respondent no.4 on the allegations of illegally made entries in the records pertaining to land belonging to the State Government in favour of certain persons who had no legal documents to support the title. In the said notification, it has been also mentioned that a notice dated 17.01.2006 has been issued to the petitioner seeking clarifications in respect of the aforesaid allegations. However, the petitioner failed to submit any clarification and superannuated on 31.05.2009. Therefore, it was decided to initiate the departmental proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. It has been held that the payment of the petitioner would be considered only after conclusion of the aforesaid departmental proceedings. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 28.06.2012, in relation to the departmental proceedings, directing the petitioner to appear before the enquiry officer on 25.07.2012 and to make submissions in defence. Being aggrieved by the impugned notification dated 13.06.2012 and subsequent notice dated 28.06.2012 properly issued under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, the petitioner left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has submitted that the very initiation of proceeding, under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules is not legally sustainable, in view of the fact that the proviso (ii) of Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules provides that no proceeding shall be initiated in respect to any event, that had took place more than four years from institution of the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, and admittedly, the proceeding has been initiated for an offence, which took place in the year 2006. Learned senior counsel further submits that in view of the settled proposition of law, there is no power for the Government to withhold gratuity and pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding but in the instant case, the respondents have withheld the retiral benefits in the guise of pendency of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submits that the show cause notice dated 17.01.2006 issued to the petitioner by stretch of imagination can be construed to be the proceeding as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision as reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 in the case of Union of India And Others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman And Others and also the decision reported in (2007) 6 SCC 694 in the case of UCO Bank And Another Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor , wherein the Honourable Apex Court has been pleased to hold that the continuation of departmental enquiry after retirement is permissible, even in such cases, where the departmental proceeding commenced during service period, by issuance of charge-sheet. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits it is no more res integra that the proceeding in respect of event that the respondent authorities had no power to invoke Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules for the event, took place more than 4 years from the date of institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to judgments as reported in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 56 in the case of State of Bihar And Others Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari and the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4049 of 2014 dated 07.04.2016 in the case of Ravindra Prasad Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others and as per the decision in W.P.(S) No. 3503 of 2010 decided on May 8, 2015 in the case of Suresh Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand .