The Board is justified in withholding pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and Group Savings Scheme during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against an employee who is prima facie responsible for a loss or irregularity.

The petitioner superannuated on 31.1.1995 from the post of Assistant Store Keeper from the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') and has filed this Writ Petition praying for directions to the Respondents, to ensure payment of pension, gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment etc. and for quashing the office order no. 693 dated 31.1.1995 (Annexure 1').

2. According to the petitioner while he was posted at the Divisional Store of the Board at Begusarai some discrepancies were detected by him while taking over charge of REC materials from Sri L.D. Singh, Store Keeper on 27.7.1982 and the petitioner submitted his report dated 27.8.1982 (Annexure 1') to the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electrical Divisional Store, Begusarai and on further queries by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation by his letter dated 12.7.1981 (Annexure 'C') and in his explanation submitted to the Electrical Superintending Engineer (Store) as well as to the Joint Secretary of the Board the petitioner denied any charge or liability and no further action was taken in this behalf against the petitioner. By the letter dated 5.8.1994 (Annexure 9') the Joint Secretary of the Board informed the petitioner that he had to superannuate on 31.1.1995 and directed him to submit the pension papers before the competent authority so that steps could be taken for sanction of pension etc. and according to the petitioner this indicated that the Board did not contemplate any departmental action against the petitioner. However, the Board issued impugned order dated 31.1.1995 (Annexure 1') by which the petitioner was informed that it has been decided by the Board to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the petitioner was required to file his written statement of defence within a fortnight in response to the charge sheet enclosed with the impugned order and Sri P.K. Bhatt, Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. According to the charge sheet the petitioner was said to be responsible for the shortage of materials between 16.6.1980 to 30.6.1980 and from 15.10.1981 to 28.2.1982 which were based on the Enquiry/Fact Finding Report dated 31.8.1988 (Annexure 10') of a Committee presided over by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Mithila Area Electricity Board, Darbhanga.

3. According to the petitioner the Committee had not considered the explanation of the petitioner and never examined him for the alleged lapses and also did not consider contemporaneous records and notings in the relevant files dated 27.8.1982. The petitioner alleges that it is not he, who could be held responsible, but other persons were liable for the alleged shortage. The petitioner claims that under the provisions of the Board's Service Regulations and its Policy Decisions the petitioner is entitled to his full pension and other retirement benefits which cannot be withheld on the pretext of pendency of disciplinary proceedings.

4. In the Supplementary Affidavit dated 27.3.1996 it has been stated by the petitioner that by the order dated 12.10.1995 (Annexure 11') issued by the Joint Secretary of the Board, payment of provisional pension to the extent of 90% amounting to Rs. 1,064.00 has been sanctioned and 10% pension has been withheld in view of the disciplinary proceedings and the proportionate dearness allowance admissible on the provisional pension has not been included and dearness allowance has been revised 148% with effect from January, 1996 from 136%. The petitioner has admitted that he has received General Provident Fund but the amounts due towards Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Group Savings Scheme and Dearness Allowance on provisional pension at the rate of 90% have yet not been paid.

5. In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Board it has been stated that the petitioner was found prima facie responsible for the shortage of materials worth Rs. 2,58,325.