Authority cannot invoke pension reduction after full pension has been sanctioned; revisional powers are reserved for the State Government under Rule 139(c) of Jharkhand Pension Rules.

ORDER :

By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -

(i) For quashing of order dated 21.10.2014 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure 2), whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been found that in all cases he has not performed his liability with due diligence and further it has been found that the petitioner cannot be considered out of charges.

(ii) For quashing of memo No.869 dated 05.10.2015 passed by respondent No.4 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa (Annexure 5) whereby and whereunder the respondent No.4 has been pleased to affirm the order of respondent No.3 and petitioner has been punished for deduction of 10% of pension from his whole pension period in accordance with Pension Rule 139 (B).

(iii) For quashing of order Memo No.562 dated 13.08.2018 passed by respondent No.5, i.e., Commissioner, Palamau Division (Annexure 6), whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. From the writ petition, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on 31.03.1981 as Revenue Karamchari in Bhandaria Circle. He was transferred on 07.08.1986 to Garhwa Circle. He superannuated on 31.08.2012 while working as Revenue Karamchari, Meral Circle, Garhwa. Petitioner was served with show cause vide Memo No.293 dated 01.10.2012 alleging that the petitioner had prepared parwana of settlement instead of real raiyat of the village Meral and another show cause was served to the petitioner vide Memo No.141 dated 02.07.2013 alleging that from March 2009 to October 2012, the Quarter Allowance has been drawn by the petitioner, however, the rent of the Quarter has not been paid, thus, the petitioner had detained the quarter at least for 8 months unauthorisedly after his superannuation. A Departmental Proceeding Case No.03/13-14 was started against the petitioner with the allegation that he has not performed his duty with due diligence. Vide Memo No.126 dated 14.02.2015, alleging that the charges against the petitioner has been proved, he was asked as to why not 10% of his pension may be deducted in accordance with Rule 139 of JHARKHAND PENSION RULES . On 15.04.2015, petitioner had submitted his reply. Vide Memo No.869 dated 05.10.2015, respondent No.4 affirmed the charges leveled against the petitioner and has imposed a punishment for deduction of 10% of pension from his pension for the whole period in accordance with Rule 139 (b) of the JHARKHAND PENSION RULES . The petitioner had preferred a departmental appeal, which was also rejected by the respondent No.5 by order dated 13.08.2018. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had given information to the respondents vide letter dated 05.03.2009 to the effect that he had left the allotted government quarter.

3. The respondents through counter affidavit have stated that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and as such order under Rule 139 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule has been passed deducting 10% of pension of the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. It has been contended by the respondents that memo No.869/Stha. dated 05.10.2015 could not be transmitted to the Office of Accountant General, Jharkhand Ranchi till 08.10.2015, meanwhile the Accountant General determined the entire pension amount of the petitioner without deducting 10% as per order of the respondent No.4. In the light of the above order, the Circle Officer, Meral, i.e., the respondent No.2 issued No Objection Certificate to the District Treasury Officer, Garhwa for release of 90% pension in favour of the petitioner through letter No.244 dated 04.06.2020. The Treasur