Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 303 (PAT)

Sri Bikrama Lal v. State Of Bihar

2004-03-15

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners, by this writ application, challenges order dated 10.2.2003 issued vide memo no. 185 as contained in Annexure 1 whereby and whereunder the disciplinary authority has withheld 50% pension of the petitioner permanently. 3. It appears that during the tenure of the petitioner a proceeding in terms of Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Classification Rules) was initiated against the petitioner and before any decision was taken in the departmental proceeding the petitioner superannuated with effect from 30.11.1997 and after retirement of the petitioner the proceeding was deemed to have been converted into a proceeding under section 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules and accordingly the same culminated into withholding of his 50% of pension permanently. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after superannuation of the petitioner the pending proceeding in terms of Rule 55A of the Classification Rules stood automatically revoked and in case the authorities were so advised, they could have initiated a proceeding in terms of Rule 43B of Bihar Pension Rules which admittedly was not done nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner after passing of the order impugned. In a pending proceeding either under rule 55 or 55A of Classification Rules if the authorities wanted to proceed to withhold pension of the delinquent even after his retirement, a proceeding under Rule 43B of Bihar Pension Rules is not required to be initiated in so many words and in this connection reference may be made to a decision of Full Bench of this court in the case of Shambhu Sharan vs. The State of Bihar and ors. reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 665 . 5. However, the question remains as to whether in terms of the order impugned any opportunity has been given to the petitioner to represent his case. Learned counsel for the State, with reference to the counter affidavit, however, submits that earlier opportunities were given to the petitioner with regard to departmental proceeding under Rule 55A of the Classification Rules but after passing of the order impugned, no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner in 2003. 6. Learned counsel for the State, with reference to the counter affidavit, however, submits that earlier opportunities were given to the petitioner with regard to departmental proceeding under Rule 55A of the Classification Rules but after passing of the order impugned, no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner in 2003. 6. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the only requirement was to give an opportunity to represent his case to the petitioner against the proposed order in terms of Rule 43B of Bihar Pension Rules and this was the maximum requirement to be done by the respondent authorities and since it has not been done, the order impugned vitiates. 7. On this ground alone, this writ application is allowed. Order impugned dated 10.2.2003 as contained in Annexure 1 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorities concerned to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case before the disciplinary authority.