Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1020 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Lala Ajay Kumar Sinha

2011-05-11

S.K.KATRIAR

body2011
ORDER M.J.C. No. 2624 of 2006 Heard Mr. Prashant Pratap, Government Pleader No.6 for the petitioner, and Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal for the opposite party. The State of Bihar has filed this application for modification and/or recall of the order dated 9.8.2004, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9043 of 2004, whereby direction was issued to the State of Bihar to release the post-retirement benefits admissible to the petitioner. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this modification application may be indicated. The opposite party herein was an employee of the Bihar Government, and was at the relevant point of time posted as Accountant in the Crime Investigation Department (in short ‘the C.I.D’). It was detected that he had allegedly embezzled rupees four crores while functioning as Accountant during the period 1994 to 2001. This led to the following six criminal cases against him: 1. Gardanibagh P.S. Case No.403 of 2001, dated 28.7.2001. 2. Gardanibagh P.S. Case No.407 of 2003, dated 11.3.2003. 3. Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 333 of 2003, dated 19.3.2003. 4. Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 114 of 2004, dated 11.2.2004. 5.Gardanibagh P.S. Case No.116 of 2004, dated 13.2.2004. 6. Gardanibagh P.S. Case No.543 of 2005, dated 7.7.2005. Cognizance has been taken against the opposite party, and is facing trial in the court of competent jurisdiction in Patna. 3. The State of Bihar also initiated departmental proceeding against the opposite party. Before the same could be completed, he superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government. Learned Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 9.4.2007, whereby he found opposite party guilty of embezzlement of huge amount, perhaps in the vicinity of rupees four crores. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned disciplinary authority passed order of punishment on 5.12.2007 (Annexure-9), whereby all his post-retirement benefits has been with-held. The order also states that huge sum has to be recovered from him. 3.i. Soon after his superannuation, the opposite party preferred C.W.J.C. No. 9043 of 2004 in this Court for payment of post-retirement benefits. Learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the same along with a large number of other writ petitions for same or similar relief. The order also states that huge sum has to be recovered from him. 3.i. Soon after his superannuation, the opposite party preferred C.W.J.C. No. 9043 of 2004 in this Court for payment of post-retirement benefits. Learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the same along with a large number of other writ petitions for same or similar relief. All of them were disposed of by a common order dated 9.8.2004, whereby it was observed as follows: “In all these writ petitions the grievance of the petitioners relates to retiral dues/death cum retiral dues, which have not been redressed even after filing of the writ petition. However, having regard to the order dated 19.9.2003 disposing of several writ petitions bearing C.W.J.C. No.7054 of 2003 and analogous cases by common order, this Court considers it expedient to dispose of these writ petitions also in terms of the directions given in the said order with only modification that two paragraphs affidavit personally sworn by the concerned authority must be filed by 20th September, 2004. Parties will be bound by the said direction and they should proceed in the matter accordingly.” 4. The State of Bihar seeks recall of the order dated 9.8.2004, in so far as it concerns C.W.J.C. No.9043 of 2004, for the reason that the order was passed without affording an opportunity to the State of Bihar to file its counter affidavit as a result of which the Court could not be informed that departmental proceeding, as well as six criminal cases, were pending against him. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that his writ petition is confined only to release of leave encashment, proceeds of group insurance, and proceeds of general provident fund. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order dated 9.8.2004, in so far as it concerns C.W.J.C. No. 9043 of 2004, was passed without affording opportunity to the State of Bihar to file its counter affidavit as a result of which the Court could not be apprised of the pendency of the departmental proceedings, and six criminal cases, against the opposite party. It has been held in the departmental proceeding that embezzlement to the extent of crores at the instance of the opposite party has taken place. It has been held in the departmental proceeding that embezzlement to the extent of crores at the instance of the opposite party has taken place. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I recall order dated 9.8.2004, passed in so far as it concerns C.W.J.C. No. 9043 of 2004. In that view of the matter, C.W.J.C. No.9043 of 2004 is restored to its original file and will be considered afresh on merits. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that he has preferred C.W.J.C. No. 2726 of 2008, challenging the aforesaid order of the learned disciplinary authority dated 5.12.2007 (Annexure-9). As an interim measure, the entire proceeds of the post-retirement benefits, namely, pension, gratuity, leave encashment, proceeds of the group insurance, and proceeds of general provident fund, shall not be released which shall abide the result of C.W.J.C. No. 2726 of 2008. 7. This application is accordingly allowed. C.W.J.C. No. 9043 of 2004 may be taken along with C.W.J.C. No.2726 of 2008. M.J.C. No.669 of 2006. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion and the result of M.J.C. No.2624 of 2006, the present contempt application has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed.