Adherence to principles of natural justice and the correct application of pension rules are crucial in disciplinary proceedings against government employees.

ORDER :

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)

1. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department and others have assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.03.2021 in W.P. (S) No. 6876 of 2019, whereby the writ application of the writ petitioner was allowed and the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority was quashed.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Engineer in Bhagalpur in the erstwhile State of Bihar on 26.01.1979 and on attaining age of retirement he was superannuated from service on 29.02.2008 from the post of Executive Engineer. After his retirement, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, as applicable to the State of Jharkhand, vide resolution No.445 dated 05.02.2009 alleging inter alia therein that there was violation of departmental rules in tender invitation, tender disposal, work allocation and back dating by the writ petitioner with regard to work of Tender Invitation Information No. 1/05-06.

After the enquiry, a report was submitted by the Enquiring Officer on 10.07.2011 wherein none of the charges against the petitioner were found to be proved and it was observed by the Enquiring Officer that the petitioner should be exonerated. However, thereafter the petitioner was served with a letter No. 5748 dated 30.09.2013 issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand, wherein he was informed that the allegations leveled against him have been found to be true and Government is in consideration of imposing punishment of deduction of 5% of pension under Rule 139 of the Pension Rules. He was granted 15 days’ time to file show-cause against the 2nd notice proposing the punishment.

The petitioner denied the allegations and submitted reply on 28.10.2013. After departmental proceeding, an order vide Memo No.1543 dated 19.02.20214 was issued wherein the petitioner was informed that he has been inflicted with punishment of deduction of 5% from his pension under Rule 139 of the Pension Rules. Accordingly, the Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand was also intimated vide letter No.2198 dated 11.03.2014 recommending deduction of 5% of pension of the petitioner for fifteen years from the date of his superannuation.

The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same but the same was also dismissed on 07.01.2016.

3. While considering the matter at hand, the learned Single Judge took into consideration Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules which provides that a departmental proceeding, if instituted in course of service of a Government employee, would be deemed to be a departmental proceeding even after retirement of the delinquent employee for the purpose of imposing punishment of withholding part or full of the pension, subject to certain limitations, as contained in proviso to Rule 43(b). The learned Single Judge further held that the foremost requirement under Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is that there must be a pecuniary loss caused to the Government if the pension is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct. The learned Single Judge further held that under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules it has been provided that if the service of a delinquent employee is not found to be thoroughly satisfactory, the sanctioning authority of pension has got power to make reduction in the amount of pension. Under Rule 139(c) of the same Rules, the State Government has been vested with the revisional power against the order passed by the sanctioning authority subject to limitation of three years. The learned Single Judge further held that admittedly the petitioner retired from service on 29.02.2008 and during his service tenure, no proceeding was ever initiated against him. It is settled legal proposition that if a proceeding