Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.
Ram Das Ram - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22661 of 2019
Decided On : 26-08-2021
Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 – Rules 43(b) and 139(c) – Withholding of 100% pension by way of punishment – Mere fact that a first information report was registered and petitioner was taken into custody on allegation of accepting bribe cannot be termed adequate for enquiring authority to have reached a conclusion that petitioner had accepted bribe – This fact ought to have been proved by department in departmental enquiry by leading evidence – No witness produced by department before enquiring authority to substantiate charge against petitioner of having taken bribe – It is a case of no evidence based on which enquiring authority recorded his finding of petitioner's guilt – Decision to withhold 100 percent pension has been taken in exercise of power under sub-rule (c) of Rule 139 of Bihar Pension Rules – Said power can be exercised for revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under control of State Government in case, State Government is satisfied that service of pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service – It does not confer any power to withhold 100 percent pension – Impugned order does not refer to any order of authority subordinate to State Government, which by impugned order has been revised – Order has been passed nearly four and a half years of his retirement – After departmental proceeding having concluded, subsequently, no proceeding could have been initiated in respect of same charge – Department could have waited for decision in criminal case for taking any action against petitioner in accordance with law – Impugned order set aside – Respondents given liberty to take appropriate decision after conclusion of criminal case in accordance with law. (Paras 6, 7, 12, 14 to 18)
JUDGMENT
1. The matter has been taken up for hearing on-line because of COVID-19 Pandemic restrictions.
2. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as the District Sub-Registrar, Samastipur. A complaint was made on 15.02.2006 before the Additional Director General, Cabinet (Vigilance), State of Bihar, against him and an Upper Division Clerk posted at the Registration Office, Samastipur, making an allegation of demand of bribe by the aforesaid two persons in the matter of registration of a sale-deed in respect of a piece of land. Allegedly, certain part transaction had already taken place between them and the complainant. Based on the said complaint, a trap was organized by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau leading to the petitioner's arrest, allegedly while accepting bribe of a sum of Rs. 1500. A criminal case was instituted in which charge-sheet has been submitted.
3. The petitioner was placed under suspension as he was taken into custody. Subsequently, he was granted bail by this Court in the criminal case, whereafter his joining in the department was accepted. However, he was again put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in respect of three charges including the charge relating to allegation for which criminal case was instituted as charge No. 1. Charge No. 3 was in four parts. The petitioner participated in the said departmental enquiry by filing his written statement of defence. He denied all the charges levelled against him. The enquiring authority submitted his report on 14.12.2007 recording his finding that 1st 2nd and 3rd part of Charge No. 3 were not proved and 4th part of the said charge stood proved against the petitioner. In respect of charges No. 1 and 2, he refrained from recording any finding with his reasoning that for the said allegation, criminal case was pending before a Court of law. The disciplinary authority considered the report of the enquiring authority and subsequently by a notification dated 06.08.2008, of the Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition, issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar, it was decided to impose upon the petitioner punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect for charge No. 3, which was found to have been proved. The order further recorded that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any emolument over and above the subsistence allowance for the period during which he had remained under suspension. In respect of charge No. 1, it was decided that decision shall be taken in that regard by the Court, apparently because of the nature of accusation leading to institution of criminal case.
4. The petitioner retired on 31.10.2010. Nearly six years after passing of the order in the departmental proceeding dated 05.08.2008, the department came out with another notification dated 01.04.2014 to the effect that in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, decision was taken in respect of charge no.3 only and, therefore, since the punishment was incomplete and partial, the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner could not be treated to have been completed. Accordingly, it was decided to proceed against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. An enquiry officer and a conducting officer were appointed. The enquiring authority, this time, submitted his report on 09.07.2014, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-7 to the writ application.
5. On close reading of the report of the enquiring authority, it is evident that no oral evidence was adduced in support of charge No. 1, which related to the allegation against the petitioner of having been caught red handed by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau while accepting bribe. The second charge against the petitioner was to the effect that the conduct of the petitioner had the effect of tarnishing the image of the department.
6. This is not in dispute that there was no witness produced by the depar
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.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
