GOURI SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the order issued by the Respondent No. 3, dated 02.06.2008, pertaining to infliction of punishment of deduction of 4 per cent of pension amount from 100 per cent payable pension amount to the petitioner and for quashing of the letter dated 10.11.2008, issued by the respondent no. 4 informing the Accountant General (Respondent No. 5) that on the basis of the punishment granted to the petitioner for 4 per cent deduction in pension amount and for quashing of the letter dated 11.12.2008, issued by the Respondent no. 6 informing the Treasury Officer, Ranchi to report regarding excess amount paid to the petitioner towards pension. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents for payment of gratuity amount alongwith interest.

(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the year 1973 and in the year 1993, the petitioner was given regular promotion to the post of the Executive Engineer in Bihar Engineering Services, Class-I. The petitioner discharged his responsibilities with devotion and sincerity and thereafter vide Notification dated 10.07.2002, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of the next higher post of the Superintending Engineer. The petitioner retired from service on 30.10.2006 from the post of the Superintending Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation. While continuing as an Executive Engineer, the petitioner was served vide letter dated 19.12.2001 of the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to file show cause under Rule 55 "A" of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, for alleged omission and commission in the capacity of the Assistant Engineer in Subarnrekha Canal Subdivision, Lailum under Subarnrekha Canal Subdivision Haludbani, Jamshedpur related to occurrence as far back as for the period 1987-88. The petitioner filed reply to the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna stating, therein, that the so called charges levelled against him, has no basis and asked for certain relevant documents to enable him to file show cause. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner was again directed vide letter dated 13.11.2003 to file show cause under Rule 55 "A" of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and the petitioner submitted his reply on 05.12.2003 denying the charges. The Government of Jharkhand vide Resolution dated 13.11.2004 decided to institute a proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 55 for the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner, while posted as an Assistant Engineer, Subarnrekha Canal Division, Haludbani, (Minor Distribution Division No. 5, Jamshedpur and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Respondent No. 3 on 22.08.2006 but the copy of the same was not served on the petitioner nor asked any show cause with regard to infliction of punishment, if any. After retirement from service, the petitioner has been paid retiral dues i.e. P.F., GIS, Leave Encashment etc. including 100 per cent pension amount. The Respondent No. 3 vide Memo dated-02.06.2008 without affording the opportunity of 2nd show cause to the petitioner and recording any reason for disagreement from the findings of the Enquiry Officer and without complying with the provisions of Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 informed the petitioner that the charges have been proved against him and it has been decided to inflict punishment of 4 per cent deduction in payable pension amount as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner submitted his representation to the Respondent No. 2 contending violations of the principles of natural justice and noncompliance of Rule 43 B of the Bihar Pension Rules. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 4 informed the Accountant General (Respondent No. 5) for deduction of excess amount paid to the petitioner in view of the punishment of 4 per cent deduction in pension amount and the respondent no. 6 also informed the Treasury Officer (Respondent No. 7) to report with regard to excess amount paid to the petitioner towards pension. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner left with no other alternative, has knocked the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing, has submitted that the order dated 02.06.2008 passed by the Respondent No. 3, is apparently illegal since without affording any opportunity of second show cause and without complying the provisions of Rule 43 B of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, the impugned order of punishment has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the enquiry officer has submitted his report on 22.08.2006 but the petitioner was neither served with any enquiry report nor asked any show cause with regard to infliction of punishment. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the enquiry report, the charges have not been fully proved. The Disciplinary Authority while inflicting the punishment, has not recorded the reasons of disagreement, which has led to miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the impugned order of punishment of withholding of 4 per cent of pension, no time limit has been mentioned and the impugned order of punishment has been passed without quantification of the loss, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be struck down.