Charges in disciplinary proceedings must be proved based on preponderance of probability, and compliance with procedural rules is mandatory. Pension deduction requires grave misconduct or pecuniary loss to the government.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kamlesh Kishore, learned AC to SC-12, for the State.

2. By filing the present writ application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the letter, as contained in Memo no. 557 (3) dated 20.09.2016 whereby and whereunder 20% pensionery amount of the petitioner has been deducted by the respondent authority. The aforesaid order was, in fact, a communication order to the Accountant General, Bihar, hence, later on, the petitioner by filing an interlocutory application, bearing I.A. No. 1 of 2019 assailed the order of punishment, as contained in Memo no. 792(9) dated 10.08.2016, which order has been communicated to the petitioner. The aforesaid interlocutory application stood allowed vide order dated 04.09.2019.

3. The short facts, which led to the filing of the present application is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Civil Surgeon, RMCH, Ranchi on 26.12.1973 and after working more than 39 years he superannuated from the post of Civil Surgeon, Jehanabad on 31.01.2010.

4. It is submitted that during the service period, he rendered efficient service and due to which he was rewarded by the District Administration. Almost two years of the retirement of the petitioner, the Government came out with a resolution, as contained in Memo no.100(9) dated 16.01.2012 initiating a proceeding under Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and he was directed to file reply. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, the enquiry officer as well as presenting officer were appointed and a memo of charge was served upon the petitioner. He further submits that from bare perusal of memo of charge levelled against the petitioner, in sum and substance the only allegation has been alleged that in his service career in the year 2008 he has issued so many transfers and deputation order irregularly and further he stayed and amended such transfers within one month of the transfer orders. It is also alleged that the petitioner for the sake of his desire had illegally done such transfers for his personal gain and, as such, the conduct of the petitioner is found to be unbecoming of Class-I Gazetted Officer. The petitioner submitted his show-cause reply and it has categorically stated in his defence that transfers were made in view of letter No. ED 366 dated 15.04.2008 of Executive Director, State Health Committee, Bihar and letter No. 900(4) dated 16.05.2008 of the Director-in-Chief, as the employees were at station for more than five years. Further the stay of transfers made thereof or amendment was made by him on receipt of letters received within one months whereby the problems of employees were mentioned relating to his/her illness, husband and wife staying together and also on the request of public representatives.

5. During the pendency of the aforesaid departmental proceeding further supplementary memo of charge was served to the petitioner vide letter dated 03.03.2014 with a further allegation of interpolation in the Child Delivery Register of Sadar Hospital, Jehanabad. It is the case of the petitioner that without considering the show-cause of the petitioner in proper perspective, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report and charges contained in resolution No. 100(9) has been found proved. So far the charge as alleged in the supplementary memo of charge is concerned that has not been proved. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, the impugned order dated 10.08.2016, as contained in Annexure-10, came to be passed whereby 20% pensionery amount of the petitioner has been deducted.

6. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting the aforesaid facts vehemently relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570. Further reliance has also been made on a judgment rendered by the learned coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of