IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PURNENDU SINGH, J.
CWJC No.14636 of 2022
(5.5.2023)
Ashok Kumar Singh ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Service Law – Departmental Proceeding – punishment of deduction of Rs. 8,50,000/- from the gratuity amount awarded – petitioner charged with taking away certain records relating to school on the date of his retirement i.e. on 31.01.2018 for which as FIR was also loged – FIR dated 17.05.2018 is only an after thought filed after delay of about four months and allegations made therein is not sustainable – the Director, Secondary Education issued sanction for prosecution on 14.01.2019 and the departmental proceeding was initiated by servicing a charge Memo dated 06.11.2019 – the sanction for prosecution reveal non application of mind – authority is required to arrive at his own decsion on the basis of material and evidence against the accused employee – the manner in which the In-charge Headmaster and the then District Programme Officer, District Education officer and Block Education officer, have proceeded against the petitioner on the basis of allegation in the FIR there appears to be malice in their action – FIR is not based on any material – the impugned order also violates the principle of audi alteram partem and it is quashed – the Addl. Chief Secretary, Secondary Education directed to release the amount. (Paras 22, 23, 25 & 28)
CWJC No. 15328/2016 dtt/- 13.09.2018, (2008) 15SCC 582, (1997) 7 SCC 622, (2000) 8 SCC 395, (2005) 3 SCC 422, (2015) 4 SCC 334 – Referred.
Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, Mr. Madhukar Mishra, and Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Binod Kumar Labh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General, Bihar.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the following relief(s):—
1. (i) For quashing of part of the order dated 13.09.2018 contained in memo no.2057 issued by the Respondent no.5, by which he has directed to the Senior Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur for deduction Rs.8,50,000/- (Rs. eight lakhs fifty thousand) from the Gratuity amount of the petitioner (Annexure- 7).
(ii) For directing and commanding the respondents concerned to make arrear of payment as per the seventh pay commission.
(iii) For direction and commanding the respondents concerned to grant the benefit of third M.A.C.P. to the petitioner.
(iv) For direction and commanding the Respondent concerned to pay all the post retiral and consequential benefits for which petitioner is entitled as per the law established with Bank interest.”
3. The petitioner retired from the post of In-charge Headmaster from Shri Durga High School, Govindpur Pirpaiti, Bhagalpur on 31.01.2018. As a consequence of his retirement, the Accountant General, Patna, Bihar vide a letter no. 05/PEN131217057655/ 201711052407PO, dated 27.12.2017, issued P.P.O., which was also communicated to the Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur.
4. Records reveal that on the date of retirement of the petitioner, the senior most teacher of the School namely Dadan Singh was given charge of the School in presence of the other teachers (Annexure-2), and Dadan Singh received the charge and the documents which were handed over to him on the same date, to which he has put his receiving with signature. The documents which were handed over and received in writing by the In-charge Headmaster namely Dadan Singh on 31.01.2018 in presence of all the teachers and staff of the School are as follows:—
^^vuqyXud%&
1- lkjh lafpdk,a
2- lkjk HkaMkj.k iath
3- QuhZpj ;FkkfLFkfr miyCèk
4- dEI;wVj :e lkjs dlsaV lfgr
5- fo|ky; ds [kkrksa ds iklcqd psdcqd lfgr
6- lkjh pkfHk;k¡
The petitioner submitted his application for issuance of No Dues Certificate before the new In-charge Headmaster namely Dadan Singh, but the same was not issued to the petitioner immediately. After a lapse of nearly four months of the petitioner's retirement an F.I.R. being Pirpaiti P.S. Case No. 119 of 2018 dated 17.05.2018 was lodged for alleged irregularities and for not handing over the documents as mentioned in the application on 31.01.2018 (Annexure-2 servies) was lodged against the petitioner.
5. The F.I.R. dated 17.05.2018 has been brought on record by way of Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. The allegation relates to the alleged offence which has taken place on 31.01.2018 i.e. the date of retirement that the petitioner had taken away certain records relating to the School on the date of his retirement i.e. 31.01.2018 which was resisted allegedly by the informant. The Director, Secondary Education gave sanction to initiate departmental proceedings vide Memo No. 132, dated 14.01.2019 on the basis of allegation made in the F.I.R. and thereafter the petitioner was served with charge memo in accordance with Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Even before the charge memo was issued in Form-K, the District Programme Officer (Establishment) had withheld a total amount of Rs. 8,50,000/ from the gratuity of the petitioner on 13.09.2018, vide Annexure-6. The petitioner is aggrieved by impugned action taken against him on the basis of the allegation made in the F.I.R. lodged against him.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the In-charge Headmaster of the School after a delay of nearly four months from the date of retirement of the petitioner. He submi
State of A.P. vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat
Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
State of Kerala vs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam
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.
Departmental proceedings can continue post-retirement, and acquittal in a criminal case does not exonerate an employee from departmental charges based on the same facts.
Gratuity withheld pending departmental proceedings post-retirement under CCS Pension Rules; leave encashment and insurance must be released absent specific legal prohibition.
Recovery of embezzled amounts from an employee without departmental inquiry violates procedural safeguards, and the right to pension is protected as property under Article 300A.
Gratuity payment can be withheld during the pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings as per Rule 64(1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
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.