SHEO PRASAD DAS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing punishment order as contained in memo dated 22.07.2014, whereby full pension of the petitioner has been withheld and further for direction upon the respondents to pay the entire retirement benefits including the pension to the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that petitioner was an officer of Jharkhand Education Service and retired on 30.09.2013 holding the post of District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad. While the petitioner was in service, three different departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for different charges, which resulted in passing of common impugned order dated 207.2014, whereby full pension of the petitioner has been withheld, purportedly under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rule. In the first departmental proceeding, it is alleged that the petitioner was arrested on the charge of receiving bribe of Rs. 9500.00, for which, a criminal case being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 15 of 2006 has been lodged but till date no charge-sheet has been submitted in that case. Charges in the second departmental proceeding speaks that the petitioner committed irregularities in transfer and posting of teachers and demanded illegal amount for revoking the suspension order of headmaster. The charges in the third departmental proceeding that the petitioner by putting pressuring upon the students collected Rs. 10.00 from each students for identity cards and further while organizing a book fair directed the headmasters of the school to purchase books from only book seller known as "Vidhi Books".

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of punishment on the ground that enquiry report in none of the three departmental proceedings was supplied to the petitioner prior to infliction of impugned order dated 22.07.2014, which caused great prejudice to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that not a single witness has been examined in the departmental proceeding to prove the charges. Learned counsel submitted with vehemence that impugned punishment is not in commensurate with Rule 55 (A) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 as from perusal of impugned order, it is manifest that there has no consideration of petitioner's show cause at all nor reason has been assigned for rejecting the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that neither there is pecuniary loss to the Government nor there is grave misconduct or negligence on the part of the petitioner, hence, the impugned punishment of withholding of full pension in the teeth of provisions as enshrined in Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the above submissions, withholding of pension is violative of Art. 300A of the Constitution of India. Referring to Rule 4 in particular Rule 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is penalty on non-payment/delay of payment of gratuity.