Oral Order

1. This matter was heard at length on 28.04.2021. The Court noticing the submissions of the petitioner and the State, has passed the following order:-

"Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, learned counsel f r the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in connection with Trap case, the petitioner was apprehended by the Vigilance and a Vigilance case was registered against the petitioner. During the pendency of the Vigilance case, the respondents decided to initiate departmental proceeding. However, only empty formality was completed by the department as neither the presenting officer was available in the enquiry nor any witness or document was adduced in the departmental proceeding to prove the charge, yet the petitioner was dismissed from service only on the ground of seriousness of the charge at the dictate of the Principal Secretary of the Department.

The order of dismissal dated 04.04.2014 and the appellate order was considered by this Court and vide judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11234 of 2014 set aside the same and considering the fact that the petitioner superannuated, the Court directed the respondent to proceed under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Thereafter the respondents issued show-cause notice to the petitioner and without considering the reply to show-cause in its proper perspective and without awaiting the finding of the pending Vigilance case, the respondents decided to forfeit full pension of the petitioner in purported exercise of power under Section 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules.

Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent in the facts of the case is illegal, arbitrary and the order of punishment of forfeiture of 100% pension during the pendency of the Vigilance case is unsustainable in the eye of law.

The Vigilance case is pending since, 2010. We are in 2021. In the aforesaid circumstance, the Court is of the considered view that if the Vigilance case is not concluded against the petitioner within one year, the petitioner shall be entitled to restoration of full pension. Prima facie, the Court is of the view that the action of the respondent forfeiting the pension in the present case notwithstanding the pendency of the Vigilance case is not justified particularly when full dressed departmental proceeding was not conducted against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the conduct Rules.

However, in order to scale the balance, the Court grants time to the respondents to file additional affidavit indicating therein whether the respondent shall ensure conclusion of the trial of the pending Vigilance case within one year from today in the event the trial is not concluded within one year then the petitioner shall be entitled to payment of full pension on the date of retirement till the date of conclusion of Vigilance case or the respondents have to give an undertaking to as to payment of 20% interest from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment, if the vigilance trial is concluded after one year.

In the aforesaid circumstance, the case is adjourned for 28.06.2021 to enable the respondents to file specific counter affidavit on the issue:

(a) That the vigilance case, if not concluded within one year, the petitioner shall be paid entire post retiral dues and all other admissible dues;

(b) In the event, the Vigilance case is not concluded within a period of one year and if payment is not made, the respondent shall take responsibility to pay interest at the rate of 20% per annum on all dues of the petitioner including the arrears of salary, post retiral dues from the date of its accrual till the date of actual payment after the conclusion of the Vigilance case.

Put up this case on 28.06.2021."

2. The Court was constrained to pass order as prima facie the Court was of the view that the proceeding under Section 43B of the Bihar Pension