Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1035 (PAT)

Baldeo Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar

2014-09-25

R.M.DOSHIT

body2014
ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a retired Revenue Clerk under the District Collector, East Champaran, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order of suspension made by the District Magistrate, East Champaran on 31st July 2009 and for recovery of retiral dues. 2. On reaching the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31st July 2009. On 31st July 2009 pursuant to a complaint made by one Sheela Devi the petitioner was placed under suspension. Pursuant to his suspension from service, he was allowed to draw 75% of the pension. Therefore, this Petition. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Umakant Shukla has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that though 75% of the pension was sanctioned even that pension has not been paid to the petitioner. He has submitted that no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. Unnecessarily the terminal dues of the petitioner are withheld. 4. The Petition is contested by the State of Bihar. According to the State Government, one Sheela Devi, who claimed to be the wife of the petitioner, made a complaint that the petitioner had contracted another marriage to one Shanti Devi while his 1st marriage to the complainant was subsisting and that the petitioner intended to give away properties to the said Shanti Devi and her children. Pursuant to the said complaint made in May 2009, an explanation was sought from the petitioner on 22nd July 2009 and on 31st July 2009, the date on which the petitioner was to retire from service, he was placed under suspension. 5. If the petitioner has contracted a 2nd marriage during the subsistence of his 1st marriage, he certainly is guilty of a misconduct. However, such misconduct has to be enquired into and proved. In the present case, merely on a complaint received from one Sheela Devi that the petitioner had contracted 2nd marriage some 12 years ago, and on receipt of explanation by the petitioner, the order of suspension is made. Besides, after the retirement of the petitioner no disciplinary proceeding could have been maintained against him for the misconduct allegedly committed 12 years before the date of his retirement. 6. In my opinion, neither the impugned order of suspension was justified nor was the action of the respondents in withholding even a part of the terminal dues. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the Petition is allowed. 8. 6. In my opinion, neither the impugned order of suspension was justified nor was the action of the respondents in withholding even a part of the terminal dues. 7. For the aforesaid reason, the Petition is allowed. 8. The impugned order of suspension dated 31st July 2009 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) is quashed and set aside. The petitioner will be paid the amounts of terminal dues which are not yet paid. The petitioner will also be paid the entire amount of pension without any deduction thereof. The respondent Nos.2 and 4 are directed to compute the amount of terminal dues payable to the petitioner on his retirement on 31st July 2009 and pay the same, if not already paid, within three months from today. Such amounts will also carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1st August 2009 till the date of payment. 9. The petitioner will be allowed full pension. The amount of arrears of pension or of difference in pension will be computed and will be paid to the petitioner within three months from today. The amount of pension shall also be paid with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date such amount became due till the date of payment. If the aforesaid amounts are not paid latest by 25th December 2014, in addition to such amounts, the petitioner will be entitled to the cost of Rs.5000/- 10. Registry will send copy of this order to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 forthwith.