The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of following the procedure laid down in Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules for passing any adverse order under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, including the need for an elaborate inquiry and the right of the delinquent to cross-examine and lead their own evidence in rebuttal.

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.

1. The prayer made in this writ application is to quash the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 dated 30-3-2001 by which a punishment of withholding 10% of pension for a period of two years had been awarded to the petitioner, who is a retired Superintending Engineer of the Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar.

2. The relevant facts for decision in this case are that petitioner took charge as Superintending Engineer in Eastern Kosi Embankment Circle, Saharsa on 7-6-1996 and continued in charge till 3-2-1997. Therefore, in April 1998 a Flying Squad inspected some of the work sites which were previously under the charge of the petitioner during the periods mentioned above and made a report. On that basis, on 12-8-1998 a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-3. The charge pointed out in the show-cause notice was to the effect that 13 estimates had remained pending and were forwarded to the Chief Engineer on 18-2-1996 after delay and that petitioner had not made sufficient inspection. Thus, the substance of the allegation against the petitioner right from the beginning is that he caused delay in sending the estimates and was indifferent in his duties. Petitioner submitted his show cause on 18-8-1998 and superannuated from service on 31-1-1999. Thereafter, the proceeding was converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) through Annexure-5 dated 25-2-1999. Ninety per cent of pension of the petitioner was released and 10% was temporarily withheld on account of pendency of proceeding.

3. On the basis of show-cause notice and petitioners reply, an order of punishment dated 17-8-1999 was passed under Rule 43(b) of the Rules whereby 10% of the pension was withheld for all times. A similar orders was passed on 15-10-1999 under Rule 139 of the Rules. Both the aforesaid orders were challenged by the petitioner through writ petition bearing CWJC No. 7068 of 1999 which was disposed of by order dated 29-2-2000 (Annexure-11). this Court quashed the orders of punishment and remitted the matter for re-inquiry and final disposal in accordance with law within a period of three months. Therefore, charges to the same effect, as noticed above, were served upon the petitioner through Annexure-12 dated 2-5-2000 and an inquiry officer was appointed to hold inquiry. Petitioner denied the charges through his reply dated 15-5-2000, Through a letter dated 25-2-2000 (Annexure-14), the inquiry officer made certain queries from the petitioner to which he submitted his reply. Thereafter, a second show-cause notice dated 14-10-2000 was served upon the petitioner along with a copy of inquiry report dated 30-5-2000. Petitioner gave his reply on 4-11-2000 and thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 30-3-2001.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, two submissions have been advanced to assail the correctness and legality of impugned order dated 30-3-2001. Firstly, it has been submitted that in view of proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Rules, the procedure of the inquiry had to be one on which an order of dismissal could have been passed. In other words, the procedure had to be one envisaged under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and not under Rule 55-A because an order like dismissal could only be passed after following the procedure laid down in Rule 55. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the inquiry report itself shows that no evidence was led b y the authorities to support the allegation contained in the report of the Flying Squad and the finding in the inquiry to the effect that petitioner was responsible for delay in despatching six estimates to the Chief Engineer was based merely upon a perusal of the report given by the Flying Squad which was the basis of allegation which had been denied by the petitioner in his show cause. The second submission is