Civil servants may face disciplinary actions affecting pensions for misconduct, even post-retirement, especially for violating judicial commands, underscoring accountability.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

(a) For the quashing and setting aside the order passed vide Notification No. Nig/Sara-3-Karya-5-179/2009/5598(s) dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure-2) under the signature of Respondent No.3 whereby the respondent authorities upon remand of the matter by this Hon’ble Court for a decision afresh in the matter of imposition of punishment upon the petitioner has been pleased to inflict disproportionate and severe punishment upon the petitioner for withholding of 25% of pension in purported exercise of power under Rule 139 of the JHARKHAND PENSION RULES which is unsustainable and barred by limitation of 3 years under the Rules.

b) To direct the respondent authorities to immediately and forthwith release and pay the Gratuity and Leave Encashment amount along with statutory and penal rate of interest to the petitioner, who has superannuated w.e.f.31.07.2012.

2. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chandan Tiwari, learned A.C. to S.C.- V for the Respondent State and Mr. Rupesh Singh for the Respondent No.6.

3. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 30.08.2016, passed by the Respondent No.3, is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that earlier the petitioner had filed W.P.(S) No.981 of 2013 for quashing the order dated 10.01.2011, by which penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect was inflicted upon the petitioner debarring him from promotion for Three (03) years with further direction that nothing will be paid to him during his period of suspension except his suspension allowance etc. and a Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, as then His Lordship was) vide Order dated 17.12.2013, had set aside the said order dated 10.01.2011 and the matter was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority for taking a decision afresh in this matter. It is submitted that even before remand of the matter vide order dated 17.12.2013, passed by the Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, as then His Lordship was) of this Court, the petitioner was sanctioned a sum of Rs.22,676/-(i.e. Annexure-17) as monthly pension vide Letter dated 25.06.2013 issued by the Office of the Accountant General. However, vide Letter dated 03.12.2015 (i.e. Annexure 20), show-cause Notice was issued upon the petitioner as to why punishment of deduction of pension under Rule 139 (C) of the JHARKHAND PENSION RULES be not inflicted.

Thereafter, the petitioner had filed reply on 12.01.2016 to the said show-cause and requested the authorities that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to him under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had also pointed out that one Ram Prasad Mahto, Case Clerk had concealed the Letter containing the interim order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007, although said Ram Prasad Mahto was custodian of the same and had requ