Procedural irregularities in departmental proceedings require evidential support; lack thereof invalidates sanctions.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarthy, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) filed the instant application challenging the order dated 30.5.2014 issued under the signature of the Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna whereby in a proceeding conducted against the petitioner, it was ordered that 50% of the pension payable to the petitioner would be forfeited. Further, prayer has been made for quashing the order dated26.8.2014 of the Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, whereby the order of punishment was reduced from forfeiture of 50% of the pension to forfeiture of 25% of the pension. The petitioner has also challenged the letter dated 5.10.2016 of the IG, Registration, Bihar and the letter dated 7.12.2016 of the Assistant IG, Registration, Bihar whereby the order of punishment has been communicated to the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that in the year 2007 he was falsely implicated in Vigilance P.S.Case no. 79 of 2007 registered under the sections 419, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 7,8, 12, 13(1)(a)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act . The case went for trial vide Special Case no. 50 of 2007 and the same ended in acquittal of the petitioner, vide judgment dated 30.7.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge Vigilance 1^st, Patna.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was proceeded against for the charges similar to the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the vigilance case. He was served with memo of charge dated 16.5.2008 in Prapatra- Ka to which he filed his reply. The inquiry proceeded and the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report dated 30.12.2008.

5. The respondents authorities differing with the contents of the inquiry report issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 26.3.2014 to which the petitioner submitted his reply.

6. In the meantime, the petitioner having retired from service on 31.1.2014, the proceedings were converted into a proceeding under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules .

7. The respondents came out with an order of punishment dated 30.5.2014 forfeiting 50% of the pension of the petitioner. On an appeal having been filed by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority modified the order of punishment of forfeiture of 50% of pension to that of forfeiture of 25% of pension. It is against these orders of punishment as also the communication of the same vide letters dated 5.10.2016 and7.12.2016 that the instant writ application has been preferred.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the vigilance case. On perusal of the inquiry report, it would transpire that not a single witness was examined on behalf of the respondents in support of the charges levelled nor was any document exhibited or proved. It is further submitted that the charges being similar to that in the criminal case and the petitioner having been honourably acquitted vide aforesaid judgment dated 30.7.2016, the respondents have no case on merits.

9. In response, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding on serious and grave charges. Though the criminal case may have ended in acquittal, however, it is well settled that departmental proceedings may still proceed against the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to point out any procedural irregularities. After giving full opportunity to the petitioner, the departmental proceeding ended in the order of punishment. The petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the orders impugned and as such the writ