IMPORTANT POINT
Punishment under Bihar (CCA) Rules, 2005 is not applicable post-retirement, and the procedure under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 must be followed for retired government servants.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. From pleadings on record, it appears that the petitioner was proceeded against on the basis of a charge memo dated 30.04.2010. The charge is in relation to a period when he was posted as a ‘Clerk’ in the Begusarai Circle Office. The substance of charges was that he has embezzled an amount of Rs. 53,318/-, being an amount withdrawn by him allegedly for office expenses. There is another amount alleged to have been embezzled, Rs. 3,574/-, which it is alleged that he had withdrawn by putting a forged signature of one driver ‘Naresh Paswan’. The third allegation is regarding insubordination that he has got complains lodged for pressurizing the higher officials. After issuance of charge memo, the inquiry was conducted and inquiry report was submitted on 27.09.2010. The conclusion of the Inquiry Officer reads as follows:-

^^vuqyXud Øekad 2 ds foLr`r foospu ls vkjksi izR;{k:i ls lgh izrhr gksrk gSA^^

3. The one line conclusion of the Inquiry Officer, to say the least, is unsustainable. It does not show consideration of any material or witnesses in the course of inquiry. It also does not show consideration of the petitioner’s defence. The findings are not definite, not based on any material, and show total non-application of mind.

4. On basis of such inquiry report, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount alleged to have been misappropriated (Rs. 53,318 + Rs. 3,574 = Rs. 56,892). This amount, admittedly, had been deposited by the petitioner, which is apparent from the communication dated 18.05.2012 (Annexure 3) from the Office of the Commercial Taxes Joint Commissioner to the Commercial Taxes Additional Commissioner, Bihar.

5. The petitioner having suffered the consequences of a perverse and baseless finding of the Inquiry Officer, the issue could have been given a quietus. Authorities, however, proceeded in their relentless efforts to visit the petitioner with further penal consequence of termination. A show cause for the proposed punishment of termination was, thus, issued to him on 30.07.2013 (Annexure 4), whereafter there appears to be no proceedings whatsoever. In the meanwhile, however, the petitioner had approached this Court for payment of his retrial dues as he was under the impression that having discharged his liabilities after deposit of the amount alleged to have been misappropriated, he should be paid his retrial dues.

6. While the writ proceedings was pending an order dated 08.04.2016 (Annexure 6) was passed by the authorities and placed on the records of the writ proceedings. Since other retrial dues had been paid, writ application was disposed of to enable the petitioner to pursue his remedy with regard to the order of punishment dated 08.04.2016 (Annexure 6) which is assailed in the instant proceedings. The same is preceded by a decision to convert the proceedings under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The decision to convert the proceedings is dated 12.02.2015 (Annexure 5). Thereafter without any further steps, straight away the order of punishment dated 18.04.2016 (Annexure 6) has been passed.

7. In between the decision to convert the proceedings and passing of the impugned order, there is nothing on record to suggest that any proceedings whatsoever was conducted against the petitioner. The order dated 08.04.2016 (Annexure 6) though passed under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, purports to inflict the petitioner with the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect and the consequence of depriving the petitioner of all other dues except subsistence allowance.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is unsustainable. After the proceedings were converted into Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before arriving at the conclusion, based on which the impugned punishment has been awarded.

9. He f