Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1297 (PAT)

Surya Nath Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-12-16

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against order no. 39/97-07 dated 19.1.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 as contained in Annexure-5 whereby and whereunder certain punishments have been imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 43 (B) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Rules"). 3. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that while the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department, Banka, he was taken into custody in a criminal case on 28.2.1988 and thereafter the petitioner was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The petitioner thereafter moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3126 if 1990 against the order of suspension dated 7.4.1988. The writ application, however, was disposed of on 21.11.1990 with a direction that in case the departmental proceeding is not concluded within four months from the date of production of the order, the order of suspension shall stand automatically revoked. It further appears that the departmental proceeding could not be concluded within the stipulated time aforesaid and the order of suspension passed against the petitioner stood revoked automatically. Thereafter, the articles of charges were served upon the petitioner which somehow or the other were answered by him and the departmental proceeding proceeded against him. During the pendency of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner superannuated with effect from 31.12.1998 from the post of Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation. He thereafter again moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11226 of 2001 for payment of retiral dues including gratuity etc. and for payment of salary for the period of suspension. The writ application aforesaid, however, was disposed of on 15.10.2001 directing the authorities to pay the gratuity amount with interest and also to pay admitted dues to the petitioner upon filing his representation. In the meantime, the departmental proceeding was concluded in terms of Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rules and the petitioner was found guilty and certain punishments were imposed upon him which is under challenge in this writ application. 4. In the meantime, the departmental proceeding was concluded in terms of Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rules and the petitioner was found guilty and certain punishments were imposed upon him which is under challenge in this writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as "the Civil Services Rules") since was not concluded before his suparannuation with effect from 31.12.1998, the proceeding in terms of Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rules was not maintainable inasmuch as that a separate proceeding was not drawn up against the petitioner under Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rules. It was further submitted that the copy of the enquiry report of the proceeding was also not given to the petitioner nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to represent his case against the proposed action of the authorities in terms of Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rules. 5. Counter affidavit and also supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavits it is stated that the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation against the report of the Conducting Officer vide Departmental Letter No. 4661 dated 22.9.1995 and he was again reminded on several occasions to submit his explanation the last one being letter no. 6182 dated 15.12.2000 but no reply was received from his end. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State with reference to the statements made in the counter affidavits submitted that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner both in the proceeding under the provisions of the Civil Services Rules and also for the proceeding under Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rules and even the enquiry report was given to him but he submitted no explanation and even though he was aware of the proceeding under Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rules, he chose not to file any reply. Learned counsel in this regard has drawn my attention to Annexure-C series to the supplementary counter affidavit. The last reminder sent to the petitioner as contained in Annexure-C series was issued vide Memo No. 6182 dated 15.12.2000 directing the petitioner to submit his explanation else the appropriate decision will be taken in the matter. 7. Learned counsel in this regard has drawn my attention to Annexure-C series to the supplementary counter affidavit. The last reminder sent to the petitioner as contained in Annexure-C series was issued vide Memo No. 6182 dated 15.12.2000 directing the petitioner to submit his explanation else the appropriate decision will be taken in the matter. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner superannuated with effect from 31.12.1998 and the last reminder dated 15.12.2000 appears to have been issued for his explanation for the proceeding under Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rules. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to represent his case against initiation of the proceeding in terms of Rules 43 (B) of the Pension Rules thus appears to be wholly misconceived and unfounded. It appears that the petitioner had full knowledge of the proceeding under Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rules and he deliberately chose not to submit his explanation for the reasons best known to him. 8. Now coming to another limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceeding under Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rules was not drawn up after superannuation of the petitioner is concerned, it appears that since the proceeding was already pending against the petitioner under the provisions of the Civil Services Rules while he was in service, the departmental proceeding was converted into a proceeding under Rule 43 (B) of the Rules after his superannuation and the authorities, therefore, were not required to pass specific order for the proceeding in terms of Rules 43 (B) of the Rules in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shambhu Sharan vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [ 2000(1) PLJR 665 ]. 9. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ application. 10. In the result, this application is dismissed. No costs.