Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 190 (JHR)

Sita Ram Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2013-02-06

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the resolution no. 6972 dated 26.10.2007 ( Annexure-8) whereby he was asked to show cause as to why a departmental proceeding be not initiated against him under Rule 55 of the Civil Services( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1935. The petitioner has also sought direction upon the respondents to pay him all the retirement benefits including gratuity, pension, leave salary and other benefits payable to him on his retirement on 30.11.2007. 3. According to the petitioner he was appointed as Sub Deputy Collector where he joined on 10.5.1974. Later on he was appointed to the post of Deputy Collector where he joined on 1.4.1976. He was granted promotion to the Junior Selection Grade w.e.f. 28.2.1985 vide notification dated 2.3.1989. Senior Selection Grade was granted vide notification dated 21.4.1990 and he was posted as Additional Collector, thereafter. It is the case of the petitioner that though meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held in 2004 but for lack of the A.C.R. of the petitioner, his name could not be recommended but juniors were recommended. The petitioner, however retired from the post of Joint Secretary under the Respondent- State on 30.11.2007. Just before his retirement the impugned show cause (Annexure-8) dated 26.10.2007 has been issued in respect of the allegations of misconduct such as financial irregularities, misappropriation, payment of vouchers twice etc. 4. The respondent-State in their counter affidavit have come out with their stand that the departmental proceeding is being pursued against the petitioner and has not come to a conclusion. The same relates to the violation of various Financial Rules and Treasury Code in passing of bills and vouchers, non-adjustment of cash payment against vouchers and irregularities in cash book maintenance etc. The petitioner is being paid provisional pension, gratuity during the pendency of the departmental proceeding. 5. The respondent-Accountant General has also appeared and filed their supplementary counter affidavit. It is stated on their behalf that the provisional pension and gratuity has been released. Leave encashment amount has also been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner vide authorization letter dated 21.1.2008. The benefits of implementation of 6thPay Revision, so far as the post retirement benefits like leave encashment, gratuity pension is concerned, the same have also been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner by different authorization letters. Leave encashment amount has also been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner vide authorization letter dated 21.1.2008. The benefits of implementation of 6thPay Revision, so far as the post retirement benefits like leave encashment, gratuity pension is concerned, the same have also been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner by different authorization letters. Counsel for the Accountant General further submits that petitioner's claim for commutation of pension is, however pending for want of final sanction for full and regular pension by the department because of pendency of departmental proceeding. These facts have not been rebutted by the petitioner by way of rejoinder. 6. Therefore, it appears from the facts brought on record that the petitioner has been subjected to a departmental proceeding just prior to his retirement, which is still continuing as per the statement made by the Statement Government. In the meantime the provisional pension, gratuity, leave encashment amount has been sanctioned and paid after the implementation of 6thPay Revision as well. So far as challenging the show cause notice is concerned, the departmental proceeding is still continuing against the petitioner and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the show cause notice which is the very inception of the departmental proceeding. 7. Respondent-State has also stated in para 29 of their counter affidavit that departmental proceeding under Rule 43 B of Jharkhand Pension rules initiated vide no. 5274 dated 13.8.2009 is yet to be concluded and Conducting Officer has been remind to submit his report also. 8. In that view of the matter, since the departmental proceeding is still pending against the petitioner, petitioner will be at liberty to agitate his remaining grievances for payment of rest of the post retirement dues depending upon the outcome of the departmental proceeding. For the present, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the provisional pension, leave encashment and gratuity have already been paid to the petitioner. The respondent- State will ensure that the departmental proceeding is concluded within reasonable time as expeditiously as possible. It also appears from para 19 of the writ petition that petitioner himself has preferred another writ application to raise his claim for promotion to the post of Special Secretary. However at the moment the counsel for the petitioner is not able to inform the present status of the said case. It also appears from para 19 of the writ petition that petitioner himself has preferred another writ application to raise his claim for promotion to the post of Special Secretary. However at the moment the counsel for the petitioner is not able to inform the present status of the said case. In any case any further claim of post retirement benefit would also depend upon the outcome of the other writ petition preferred by the petitioner. 9. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.