LAWS(JHAR)-2009-1-104

STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. GAURI SHANKAR SINGH

Decided On January 19, 2009
STATE OF JHARKHAND Appellant
V/S
Gauri Shankar Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents -State has filed this review application seeking review of the judgment dated 13.9.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No.2196 of 2006 whereby learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with certain observations and directions. For better appreciation, the judgment dated 13.98.2006 is quoted herein below: -

(2.) IN view of the absence of such a provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.6.1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in

(3.) IN the earlier writ petition being W.P. (S) No.3032 of 2001, the petitioner had challenged the order as contained in Memo No.139 dated 23rd January, 2001 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad under Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules whereby payment of retiral benefits was withheld. While disposing of the said writ petition, the learned Single after holding that the Superintendent of Police had no jurisdiction to withhold the total retiral benefits, allowed the respondents to proceed with the departmental proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. After about four years, the petitioner filed W.P. (S) No.2196 of 2006 wherein only prayer that was made by the petitioner was for a direction to the respondents to pass final order on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer after holding the departmental proceeding. Prima facie it appears that the learned Single Judge without going into the earlier judgment passed in W.P. (S) No.3032 of 2001, which was annexed as annexure -1 to the writ petition, held that the respondents -State was not entitled to initiate any departmental proceeding. Prima facie, therefore, it is evident that there is gross error on the face of the record. The impugned judgment passed in W.P. (S) No.2196 of 2006 is fit to be reviewed. Learned counsel for the State submitted that because of the impugned judgment dated 13.9.2006, final decision has not been taken.