ARUN KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order contained in Annexure-3 whereby the pension of the petitioner has been withheld by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on the ground that petitioner has been convicted in R.C. Case No.25(A)/96 in the A.H.D Scam under the provision of Rule 46 of Bihar Pension Rule and prayer has been made for fixation & finalization of pension and for release the same forthwith with effect from the date of superannuation i.e. 31.01.2007 alongwith interest and also gratuity. The petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to forthwith release the arrears of difference of salary for the period of suspension.

(2.) The brief facts as disclosed in the writ petition is that initially the petitioner joined as Accountant in the year 1972 and continued as such till September, 2005. While continuing as Accountant, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground of his judicial custody with effect from 09.02.1996 for his alleged involvements in Fodder Scam and the petitioner was put under suspension with effect from 07.02.1996. Thereafter, the said order of suspension was revoked vide order passed in C.W.J.C No.2348 of 1998(R) and the order of revocation of suspension was passed on 16.09.1999 and the period of suspension i.e. from 07.02.1996 till 16.09.1999 has been treated as period of regular services. A departmental proceeding was initiated vide letter dated 09.12.1999 and again the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 30.03.2000 on the ground of judicial custody and the said departmental proceeding was closed vide memo No.191 dated 31.01.2005 issued by the respondent no.2 as per Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It has been averred in the writ application that after revocation of suspension the petitioner started discharging his duties. In view of this conviction in the Fodder Scam case, the petitioner has been dismissed from services with effect from 21.09.2005 vide office order dated 31.03.2006. The normal date of superannuation of the petitioner was on 31.01.2007 and after due date of retirement the petitioner submitted representations for grant of pensionary benefit vide representation dated 30.04.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the writ petition and on the receipt of the said representations the respondents vide order dated 12.11.2007 rejected the representation of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit under Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rule which is under challenge in this writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order vide Annexure-3, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has knocked the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the conviction in a criminal case will not ipso-facto empower the respondents to withhold the pensionary benefits since the pension is not bounty or gratis and same can only be withheld under the authority of law by initiating appropriate proceeding under Pension Rule. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents in withholding the pension amounts to putting petitioner to double jeopardy which is in the teeth of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents refusing for grant of pensionary benefits is certainly not on account of any misconduct or in contemplation of departmental proceeding but for the conviction in criminal case. Therefore, the action of respondents being arbitrary and unjust violates of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.