Once a government servant superannuates, the authority to impose major penalties is restricted to procedures outlined under the relevant pension rules. Any dismissal issued without initiating and complying with such statutory pension-related disciplinary proceedings is legally unsustainable, even if based on prior criminal conviction.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

By way of present writ application petitioner has thrown challenge to the order dated 18.11.2016 as contained in memo No. 8204, passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service with retrospective date i.e. 18.06.2002 that too after retirement and without initiating any proceeding under the provisions of Rule-43(b) of the JHARKHAND PENSION RULES and in violation of order dated 17.02.2016, passed in W.P.(S). No. 2747 of 2011.

Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to release the entire retiral benefits viz. Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Group Insurance and further to fix the pension of the petitioner since he has retired from service on 28.02.2011 but till date his pension has not been fixed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was employed as an Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Mohanpur, Bokaro. While he was in service, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in the year 1992 under Sections 307/148/34 IPC due to a land dispute and he was convicted by the Trial Court under the aforesaid Sections. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 358/2002 before this Court against the Trial Court's order; whereby this Court modified the conviction and convicted him under sections 324/148/34 IPC vide order dated 05.11.2009. The Petitioner, thereafter, preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 2160/2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.11.2010 reduced the sentence imposed upon the Petitioner to the period already undergone by him.

3. Learned Amicus representing the petitioner submits that after the criminal case was over when the Hon’ble Apex Court modified the sentence for the period already undergone vide its order dated 16.11.2010; the Petitioner was thereafter suspended vide an office order no. 3753 dated 26.11.2010 issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 3 without issuing any show-cause as against the Petitioner wherein it has been stated that the Petitioner would only be entitled for subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. The Area Education Officer, Bermo was appointed as the Inquiry Officer in the instant matter. The Petitioner worked regularly till the order of suspension passed as against him and was being paid his salary regularly.

4. The Petitioner retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2011 during the period of suspension itself without any subsistence allowance paid to him during the entire period of suspension. After his retirement, the Petitioner represented before the Area Education Officer, Bermo-cum-Inquiry Officer vide his letter dated 07.03.2011, requesting him to withdraw the suspension order as the Petitioner has already retired from service.

5. Learned Amicus further submits that to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 dismissed him from service with a retrospective date i.e. 18.06.2002 vide office order no. 517 dated 25.03.2011, without awaiting the enquiry report from the Inquiry Officer and directed that the Petitioner would only be entitled for the Group Insurance amount and the Provident Fund amount along with interest. The said dismissal order does not mention as to under which provisions of Rule/ Act the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

6. Learned Amicus further submits that being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the Petitioner preferred W.P.(S). No. 2747/2011 as agai