Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 553 (PAT)

Ramesh Nandan Pd. Bariyal v. Patna University

1997-08-05

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body1997
1. The petitioner is a retired Principal of respondent Patna University. He has challenged the notification dated 20.2.97, by which the respondent Registrar, Patna University initiated a departmental proceeding, against the petitioner at the instance of respondent-Vice Chancellor, Patna University. 2. It is not necessary to go into the detail facts of the case, except the relevant one. The petitioner while functioning under the respondent-Patna University as Principal Incharge of Patna Training College, he was suspended by one order dated 20-7-96. Prior to the same, the respondents lodged a criminal case against the Petitioner under sections 406, 408, 466, 467, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. on 10.7.96. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension in writ petition C.W.J.C. no. 6988/96, which was dismissed and then when the petitioner preferred L.P.A. no. 63/97, The order of suspension was quashed and it was directed to pay the full salary to the petitioner for the period of suspension. Only thereafter the respondents issued order releasing the full salary in favour of the Petitioner for the period of suspension. In the meantime, the petitioner superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.96. The respondents thereafter having initiated a departmental proceeding by letter dated 20.2.97 directing the enquiry officer to complete the departmental proceeding, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner he having superannuated from service of the Patna University, it is not open to the respondents to proceed in the departmental proceeding after the retirement of the petitioner. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Counsel for the University submits that in terms with Rule 30 of the Retirement Benefit of the statute as framed under the Patna Universities Act, Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 stands adopted. According to her, it is always open to the respondents to proceed in the department proceeding for the purpose of curtailment of pensionary benefits in terms with Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The counsel for the University also relied on Annexure-B to the supplementary counter-affidavit, a letter dated 10.7.97 it has been shown therein that a proceeding has been initiated in terms with Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules and the copy of the memorandum of charges has been supplied with the same. The counsel for the University also relied on Annexure-B to the supplementary counter-affidavit, a letter dated 10.7.97 it has been shown therein that a proceeding has been initiated in terms with Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules and the copy of the memorandum of charges has been supplied with the same. The petitioner has also challenged the same by filing a petition being I.A. no. 3630/97. 5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, according to this Court, the respondents cannot proceed with any departmental proceeding for purpose of inflicting any punishment on the petitioner. So far as the question as to whether they can proceed in a proceeding for the purpose of curtailment of post retirement benefit in terms with Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rule is concerned, I give no specific finding as the matter stands decided by this Court in the unreported case in C.W.J.C no. 11035/93, disposed of on 28.6.95. However, I make it clear that the petitioner having retired from service in December, 1996 the respondents cannot proceed with any proceeding with respect to any allegation for the period 1992-93 more than four years having lapsed before the issuance of letter dated 10.7.97. This apart, I make it further clear that the proceeding after the retirement even for the purpose of Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rule can be initiated only by the Patna University and not by any other authority, as such power under Rule 43 (b) has been vested with the State of Bihar under the Bihar Pension Rules. If no such proceeding has been initiated by the Patna University that is by Synate, then the petitioner may bring the same to the notice of the respondents. However, if such power has been delegated to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, then he can communicate the same to the petitioner. A decision in one or other way is to be taken by the respondents in this respect within a period of six months from the date of receipt production of a copy of this order so that the petitioner may not suffer in the matter of grant of post retirement benefit. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforementioned observations/directions.