Pension rights cannot be revoked without adherence to due process, ensuring legal and procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, especially when misconduct charges remain pending.

JUDGMENT :

(HARISH KUMAR, J.)

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

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as contained Memo No. 820 dated 04.04.2014 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Collectorate, Nalanda, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of withholding of permanent pension till his life.

3. Short facts as culled out from the materials available on record are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as an Amin on 20.10.1973. While he was working as a Revenue Karamchari under Harnaut Circle, Nalanda, he was apprehended by a trap team of the Vigilance Department on 08.03.2007 on the charge of accepting bribe of Rs.1300/-. The petitioner was taken to judicial custody and subsequently he was placed under suspension vide Letter no. 915 dated 04.04.2007. Consequently upon approval of the District Magistrate, the petitioner was served with a memo of charge as contained in Letter no. 1044 dated 30.08.2007; the Sub Divisional Officer, Bihar Sharif, was appointed as Conducting Officer whereas the Circle Officer, Harnaut as the Presenting Officer.

4. On being released from the custody, suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide Letter no. 826 dated 08.04.2008 and he was transferred from Harnaut Circle to Parwalpur Circle. In the meantime, in terms of Letter no. 1111 dated 25.05.2008 modifying the earlier order, another Conducting and Presenting Officers were appointed. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hilsa, was appointed as Conducting Officer whereas the Circle Officer, Hilsa was appointed as Presenting Officer. The Conducting Officer having taken note of the fact that both the criminal and departmental proceedings are based upon same set of facts giving rise to same charges, on the show-cause explanation filed by the petitioner, recommended to keep the departmental proceeding in abeyance till the final outcome of the investigation of the vigilance case. However, the Disciplinary Authority, on being convinced that both the criminal and departmental proceedings may be continued simultaneously in view of the Letter no. 1415 dated 07.05.2010, directed the Conducting Officer to continue with the departmental proceeding. In pursuant thereto, the Conducting Officer vide his Letter no. 1415 dated 08.12.2010, asked the petitioner to submit the status report of the vigilance case, who in turn, submitted the same. The petitioner also requested for supply of a detailed charge-sheet and other relevant necessary documents to render his effective show-cause explanation. However, the Conducting Officer on being found, prima facie charges proved, submitted his enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority. In consequence of which, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nalanda, vide his order contained in Memo no. 2587 dated 09.09.2011, dismissed the petitioner from his service.

5. The petitioner, on being aggrieved with the order of dismissal, preferred Service Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, in Appeal No. 166 of 2011, inter alia, on the ground that the order has been passed without issuing any show-cause notice or providing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. The said appeal came to be disposed off on 21.02.2013 by setting aside the order of dismissal