SURAVI GHOSH @ SURARI GHOSH WIFE OF LATE SHANKAR KUMAR GHOSH, RESIDENT OF SHANTI NAGAR, P.O AND P.S. TATMATOLI, DISTRICT PURNEA (BIHAR) Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, PROJECT BUILDING, H.E.C, P.O AND P.S. DHURWA, DISTRICT : RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to pay arrears of salary of her deceased-husband from the date of termination till the date of superannuation and also prayed for payment of retiral benefits of her late husband with interest and further prayer has been made for quashing memo dated 28.03.2003 whereby entire amount of pension and gratuity of her deceased husband has been forfeited in the garb of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as emanated from the averments of the writ application is that against the husband of the petitioner, who was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1965, while posted as Officer-in-Charge, Dhanbad G.R.P.S., a criminal case was instituted under Sections 409, 479, 201 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he conspired in stealing of seized coal kept near the Ranchi Railway Station Godown Shed. Pursuant thereto, a departmental proceeding no. 20 of 1981 was also initiated against him on the self-same charge, which led to dismissal of the petitioner vide order dated 14.08.1987, against which, the husband of the petitioner preferred appeal, which was also dismissed. Being aggrieved, the husband of the petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing C.W.J.C No. 863 of 1996 (R), which was disposed of vide order dated 5.08.2002 by setting aside the impugned order of dismissal taking into account that the delinquent has been acquitted in criminal case vide judgment dated 07.07.1995 and further direction was given to the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of furnishing copy of enquiry report to the delinquent. In compliance thereof, the respondent no. 6- Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jamshedpur vide memo dated 05.02003 reinstated the petitioner in services and copy of enquiry report was also served upon him seeking reply thereof. It has further been averred that though the order of reinstatement was passed by the respondents-authorities but though the husband of the petitioner had already superannuated from services w.e.f 01.03.2001, proceeding under Rule 43(b) was initiated against him which culminated in passing of impugned order dated 28.03.2003 whereby entire amount of pension and gratuity of her deceased husband has been forfeited.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the criminal case, which is genesis of very initiation of departmental proceeding, goes in view of the acquittal of husband of the petitioner and furthermore, the Honourable High Court vide order dated 5.08.2002 set aside the order of termination, the impugned order dated 28.02003 whereby entire amount of pension and gratuity of her deceased husband has been forfeited has no leg to stand and is liable to quashed in limine. Questioning the initiation of proceeding under Rule 43 (b), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that instead of initiating fresh proceeding under the relevant Rule, the respondents continued with the proceeding initiated against the delinquent, which was initiated prior to his superannuation. Further, on the point of jurisdiction of the authorities to pass order under Rule 43 (b), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rule 43(b) it is the State Government who has power to pass necessary order regarding forfeiture of the amount of pension and gratuity but it has been passed by the authority, who is bereft of such power, and moreover, the impugned order has been passed without coming to the conclusion that the alleged act of misconduct committed by the late husband of the petitioner was falling under the scope and ambit of grave misconduct or any pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government by his alleged misconduct or negligence.