ASHUTOSH KUMAR SAHAY Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing resolution dated 10.08.2013, by which departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner which culminated in imposition of punishment order as contained in Notification dated 13.01.2014, whereby 10 % pension already sanctioned has been ordered to be deducted for five years.

(2.) The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police by the State of Bihar in the year 1973 and retired on 31.05.2010 in the rank of Dy. S.P from the Jharkhand Police Service and, accordingly his pension was sanctioned. After retirement, in the year 2013, the petitioner was served with a memo dated 14.08.2013 containing memo of Charge dated 10.08.2013 stating therein that while he was posted in C.I.D, Bihar during the period 19.06.1998 to 17.12.2001, he did not put up the file of Begusarai P.S. Case No. 102/96 dated 27.04.1996 u/s 302/341/447/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act before any competent Police Officer on account of which no order was passed in the said case and its progress was delayed on account of which its merit was affected casting aspersion on its investigation. After being served with charges, the petitioner requested the Additional D.G (CID), Ranchi to give copy of the prejudicial documents, but the same was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his final written defence statement to the Additional Director General, C.I.D, Bihar on 27.11.2013 stating that departmental proceeding under Sec. 43 (b) of Pension Rules has illegally been initiated against him as the incident referred to in the charge is more than four years before his retirement, but, without considering the defence put forth by the petitioner, Notification order dated 13.01.2014 was passed, whereby 10 % pension has been ordered to be deducted for five years, which is impugned in this case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no show cause notice or explanation was asked for from the petitioner while in service or even after superannuation on 31.05.2010. The matter relates to the period 19.06.1988 to 17.12.2001 and after more than a decade and after more than three years of his retirement, departmental proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules was initiated against the petitioner and the respondents-authorities did not care to know that at this stage the departmental proceeding is barred by limitation as per the provision laid down in 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the case at hand neither there is any pecuniary loss nor there is any proved misconduct as to fetter the petitioner under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Rule 139 (b) of the Pension Rules is also not available to the respondents to invoke in the case at hand as there has been no proved misconduct nor there has been any decision that the services of the petitioner was thoroughly unsatisfactory. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the proceeding is fraught with procedural irregularity as neither prejudicial documents were supplied to the petitioner nor the witnesses examined in the proceeding has proved the charges levelled against the petitioner. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of State of Bihar and Ors Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari as reported in (1995) Supp 3 SCC 56 in particular paragraph 9 and 10.