IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Ram Kumar Singh son of Srimant Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through principal secretary, Planning and development Department, Govt of Bihar, Patna - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6945 of 2017
Decided On : 21-01-2021
Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 – Rule 43 (ka) – Non-payment of retiral dues – Charges levelled against delinquent employee are to be proved by preponderance of possibility in course of departmental proceeding – Departmental proceeding initiated against petitioner prior to his retirement was converted in a proceeding under Rule 43 (ka) of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 – Disciplinary authority though gave an opportunity to petitioner to submit his reply on Inquiry report but when petitioner submitted his reply and controverted finding of Inquiry Officer, disciplinary authority proceeded to pass impugned order without applying his own judicious mind – Appellate authority did not consider grounds of appeal – Inquiry against petitioner has been conducted in a totally perfunctory manner – Strict rule of evidence will not apply in a departmental proceeding but in a case where no evidence was adduced on behalf of Department, petitioner had no occasion to adduce his defence – He had already submitted his show cause pursuant to opportunity granted to him but thereafter no date was fixed by Inquiry Officer for adducement of evidence on behalf of parties – Impugned order set aside – Fresh Proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with relevant service rules and provision of principle of natural justice shall be complied with. (Paras 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 35, 36 and 37)
2018 (2) PLJR 933 – Applied.
(2015) 2 SCC 610 – Assented.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present writ application was initially preferred for the following reliefs:-
(ii) For further direction for payment of interest of 12% upon aforesaid amount till date of actual payment.
(iii) For any other relief/relief’s the petitioner entitled for in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The petitioner who was holding the post of Statistical Supervisor in Bakhtiyarpur Block, Patna was arrested after he was trapped by the Department of Vigilance while accepting a sum of Rs. 8000/-in cash from the complainant. One F.I.R. being Vigilance Case Number 3 of 2014 dated 11-04-2014 under Section 7/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered, petitioner was suspended under rule 9 (2) (d) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2005’) with effect from 11-04-2014. He was granted bail in the Vigilance Case and while the said case is still pending, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was served with Prapatra “d” vide memo no. 771 dated 03-06-2014 (Annexure -2 series).
3. It is stated that after his release on bail, the petitioner joined at the headquarter Bettiah (West Champaran) from where he superannuated on 31-08-2015. The departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner prior to his retirement was converted in a proceeding under Rule 43 (ka) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Pension Rules’). By a memo no. 1390 dated 19-07-2016 (Annexure 7 to the writ application) petitioner was communicated that the departmental proceeding against him has been converted under the Pension Rules.
4. The petitioner moved this Court with a grievance that after his retirement, though, he has been provided with his General Provident Fund (GPF) and Group Insurance amount in the month of December 2016, his other retiral dues such as gratuity, leave encashment have not been paid and no step has been taken for fixation of his provisional pension. In this regard, he drew the attention of this Court towards his representation as contained in annexure 8 series to the writ application.
5. The petitioner submitted that he is suffering from diabetes and other medical problems and because of non-payment of legitimate retiral dues and in absence of commencement of his provisional pension he is on the verge of starvation.
6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 6 it was informed that in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of withholding of his total pension under Rule 43 (ka) of the Pension Rules and in this regard memo no. 1533 dated 18-07-2017 has been issued. The said respondent took a stand that since vigilance case is still pending, after final judgment by the Hon’ble Court gratuity and pension order will be affected.
7. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 5 in which the stand of respondent nos. 4 and 5 has been endorsed. Annexure ‘E’ to the counter affidavit is the copy of Memo no. 1533 dated 18.07.2017.
8. In view of the order passed by the respondents, awarding punishment of withholdment of 100% pension which includes gratuity, the petitioner filed an application being I.A. No. 1 of 2020 seeking amendment to the writ application. In the amendment petition, the following reliefs have been prayed:-
Union of India and Others Versus P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610
Arvind Kumar Singh versus the state of Bihar and Others reported in 2018 (2) PLJR 933
The court emphasized the importance of conducting departmental proceedings in accordance with the principle of natural justice and directed payment of provisional pension to the petitioner.
Pension rights cannot be revoked without adherence to due process, ensuring legal and procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, especially when misconduct charges remain pending.
The absence of evidence in disciplinary proceedings renders any punitive action unsustainable.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.