Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1252 (JHR)

Arya Kumar Lal v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2008-11-12

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
JUDGMENT : The petitioner was under the employment of the Bihar State Electricity Board since the date of his appointment on 09.12.1957. He retired from service on 28.02.1998 as a Meter Reader from the Dhanbad Circle of the B.S.E.B. Prior to his retirement, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on 13.10.1997 on the charge that without prior approval of the Board he purchased land at Hirapur vide two separate sale deeds dated 24.03.1972, 15.10.1977 and 07.05.1978 respectively in the name of his wife and son and thereafter constructed two storied building upon the land. On the allegation of such misconduct, a departmental proceeding was initiated. The proceeding continued even after the petitioner’s retirement from service and was concluded on 28.06.2000. The petitioner was found guilty in the proceeding and by way of punishment, 5% of his pension was to be deducted. By the impugned order dated 11.02.2003, the deduction of 5% from the pension of the petitioner was ordered. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid impugned order in this writ application. 2. Assailing the impugned order, Shri R.S.Mazumdar learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the departmental proceeding which was initiated during the service period of the petitioner and continued even after his superannuation but with-holding of pension can be made only if the charges leveled against him are of causing financial loss to the employer either due to misconduct or negligence. Referring to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that misconduct per se, not causing financial loss, does not confer any right on the employer to make any recovery from the pension of the delinquent employee. Learned counsel, in this context, refers to and relies upon the judgement of the Patna High Court in the case of Ball Ram Thakur v/s. Bihar State Electricity Board & another 1995 Vol. 2 PLJR page 609 and the judgement in the case of Amod Ranjan Sinha v/s. State of Bihar & others 1999 Vol. 3 PLJR page 496. 3. Per contra, the stand taken by the respondent B.S.E.B. through the counter affidavit filed by them is that while the petitioner was in service, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the charge that he had amassed disproportionate assets beyond his known sources of income. The departmental proceeding continued even after the retirement of the petitioner from service and he was found guilty. The departmental proceeding continued even after the retirement of the petitioner from service and he was found guilty. Shri A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents would argue that under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, it is within the competence of the employer to with-hold either full or any part of the pension of the delinquent employee if he is found guilty of grave misconduct. Learned counsel adds that in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, the charge was proved against him and he was held guilty. The departmental proceeding was conducted strictly according to the rules of procedure and before imposing the punishment, a second show cause was also served upon the petitioner to enable him to submit his replies which he did and the same was considered by the competent authorities. 4. The issue raised for determination is whether in the facts and circumstances of the petitioner’s case under the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules the respondent authorities had the power to with-hold any portion of the pension of the petitioner ? The contention of the respondents is that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was on the charge of his having amassed disproportionate assets beyond his known sources of income. However, from the substance of charge, a copy of which has been annexed with the writ application, it appears that the charge against him was that without prior approval of his employer, the petitioner had purchased lands in the name of his wife and son and had constructed a double storied building thereon. There is apparently no charge which could suggest that he had amassed wealth beyond his known sources of income disproportionately or that he had indulged in any act of “grave misconduct”. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents emphasizes that such powers are available to the employer under Rule 43 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. There is apparently no charge which could suggest that he had amassed wealth beyond his known sources of income disproportionately or that he had indulged in any act of “grave misconduct”. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents emphasizes that such powers are available to the employer under Rule 43 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. For better appreciation, Rule 43(b) is quoted below : Rule 43(b) : “The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. 6. From a bare reading of the above provisions it is manifest that though the employer has the right to with-hold any portion of the pension of the delinquent employee but such action could be resorted to only if the delinquent employee is found guilty in the departmental or judicial proceeding of “grave misconduct” and to have caused pecuniary loss to the government by such misconduct or by his negligence during the period of his service. As rightly pointed out by he learned counsel for the petitioner, misconduct per se does not confer the right on the employer to with-hold any portion of the pension of the delinquent employee. The essential condition for exercising such powers is that the delinquent employee should, by his act of misconduct or negligence, caused pecuniary loss to the employer. In the instant case, the fact does not indicate either that the petitioner was found guilty of any “grave misconduct” or that he has caused any pecuniary loss to the employer by his alleged misconduct. 7. A similar issue came up for consideration before a Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Amod Ranjan Sinha v/s. State of Bihar and others 1999 Vol.3 PLJR page 496 wherein it was held that in absence of gross misconduct, as distinguished from mere allegation of misconduct, the employer has no authority to with-hold any portion of the pension of the employee. 8. 8. In the light of the above discussions, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.02.2003 whereby 5% of the petitioner’s pension was ordered to be deducted, is hereby quashed. The respondents are accordingly directed to release the deducted 5% pension of the petitioner. The respondents shall pay the arrears of pension from the date when such payment fell due, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. In the event of the respondents’ failure to pay the arrears within the stipulated period, the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum calculated from the date immediately after the expiry of the stipulated period till final payment.