The withholding of pension under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, is only permissible if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or causing pecuniary loss to the government in departmental or judicial proceedings, and if the alleged misconduct took place within four years of the institution of the proceedings.

1. In this writ petition, grievance of the petitioner is that though he retired from service of the Respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board while posted as Chief Engineer on 31.10.1996 and thereafter filed representation in terms of the general directions for relase of his pension in August, 1998, he was only paid 90% of pension and G.P.F. amount. According to the petitioner, he has been illegally and arbitrarily kept deprived of 10% of his pension, full gratuity and the amount of leave encashment. As such, prayer has been made to direct the Respondent-Board to sanction and pay the said remaining retirement benefits with interest, it is not in dispute that the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.10.1996 and in August, 1998 he filed representation in terms of the general directions of this Court for release of his entire pensionary benefits, yet the aforementioned 10%, of his pension, full gratuity and leave encashment have not been paid.

2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent- Board, it has been stated that while the petitioner was in service of the Board, he was made an accused in Vigilance RS. Case No. 5 of 1989 regarding theft of electricity by M/s Usha Alloy & Steel Limited, Gamharia, Jamshedpur (a H.T. Consumer). According to the case of the Respondents the charges relate to the period of posting of the petitioner as Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Jamshedpur. The Board having been satisfied with the report of i.O. and documents pertaining thereto about the existence of criminal misconduct accorded sanction to launch prosecution against the petitioner vide office order no. 3505 dated 19.7.1996 (Annexure-A). It is, thus submitted that due to pendency of the criminal case and sanction of the prosecution against the petitioner, provisional pension at the rate of 90% has been sanctioned to him. According to the stand taken in the counter affidavit 10% of pension, gratuity and other benefits have been kept pending till final judgment in Criminal Case in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules read with Boards Standing Order No. 784 dated 21.8.1997, a photostat copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-B. It is stated that F.I.R. was lodged on 16.6.3989 for misuse of Government office in collusion with the aforementioned consumer to facilitate theft of energy, preparing fabricated documents to benefit the consumer and thereby causing loss to Boards revenue for self interest during the peiod April, 1986 to December, 1988. It is further alleged that the petitioner is an accused in the said first information report.

3. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, a copy whereof has been served on the counsel for the Board on 10.8.1999, it is stated that the Board filed F.I.R. on 16.6.1989 in which the petitioner was not made accused. The names of F.I.R. accused were Anandi Rai, Bijay Bhushan, Subodh Narayan and Braj Kishore Jhawar (wrongly typed as Braj Kishore Thakur). The petitioner was posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Jamshedpur from 25.8.1981 to 9.8.1985 and the event in the case relates to the period between August, 1984 to 4.3.1985 as it is evident from the F.I.R. Thus, according to the petitioner, the events relate to the time which is more than four years before the F.I.R. was lodged.

4. Despite service of the said supplementary affidavit on the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Board on 10.8.1999, no further affidavit in reply to the same has been filed on behalf of the Board. As learned counsel for the Board strongly asserted that the petitioner was accused in the first information report and in this regard relied upon the statement made in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit from where it appeared the aforementioned fact in this regard was made by inserting the words "an accused in the said" by pen after the words "The petitioner is" and before the words