SHIV PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The writ petition relates to a challenge to the reduction of pension of the petitioner to the extent of 50% forever by the impugned order dated 26th November 2010 contained in notification no. 1065 issued by the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department (Dairy Development), Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-1). The impugned order contains the decision of the State Government on the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner during his service vide resolution no. 262 dated 18th March 2006 when he was posted as District Dairy Development Officer at Sahebganj. As per the charge sheet issued in Form 'Ka', petitioner had entered into second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage at the time of entering into service. He concealed this fact at the time of joining service. It was further alleged that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- from his provident fund account in the name of marriage of his daughter. He had wrongly informed the department that the girl was his daughter. He was also alleged to have ill-treated his first wife. The inquiry proceedings culminated in the finding of guilt on two charges i.e. having entered into second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage and having concealed this fact at the time of joining in service as well as making false declaration for withdrawal of the provident fund amount in the name of marriage of his daughter. The 3rd charge was not found to be established.

(3.) Upon conclusion of the inquiry and submission of the inquiry report through letter dated 12.9.2007, petitioner was served with the second show-cause notice through letter no. 737 dated 8th October 2007. Petitioner furnished reply to the second show-cause notice as well through letter no. 181 dated 16th October 2007 and letter no. 211 dated 10th December 2007 which were found to be unsatisfactory. Petitioner, however, superannuated in the meantime on 31st July 2008 before any decision could be taken in the disciplinary proceedings. The order impugned has been passed after his retirement on consideration of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer the reply submitted by the delinquent petitioner to the second show-cause notice by the State Government. The respondent-Government has found the charges established on two counts and held the petitioner guilty of serious misconduct. The impugned order has been passed under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules after concurrence of the Departmental Minister as well as the Chief Minister of the State. It has also the concurrence of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission.