Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2320 (JHR)

Sudhir Kumar Sinha v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-10-23

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Surviving defects are ignored. In view of the stand reflected in the affidavit of the Respondent, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department appears to be necessary party as concerned records relating to the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide memo no. 164 dated 03.05.1994 have not been supplied to the authorities of the State of Jharkhand despite correspondence and reminder made by them. Accordingly, the State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department be impleaded as Respondent no.6 in the instant writ petition. Let such addition be carried out by learned counsel for the petitioner during course of the day in red ink. Mr. S.P.Roy, learned Government Advocate, State of Bihar accepts notice on behalf of newly added respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State of Jharkhand, Accountant General, Jharkhand and the newly added State of Bihar. 3. Petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2016 from the post of Assistant Engineer under the office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Panki, Daltonganj. He came into service on 31.01.1979 as Junior Engineer in Ganga Pump Canal Division, Chousa, Buxer. He faced departmental proceeding for alleged charges for defalcation of money for the period 1983- 84 while he was posted at Buxer vide memo dated 03.05.1994 for 4 distinct charges. Petitioner has enclosed the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 08.03.1995 at Annexure-4, which according to him exonerated him of all the 4 charges. The suspension order was revoked by order dated 23.01.1999 bearing memo no. 1198 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar (Annexure-6). However, it contained the stipulation that decision relating to his period of suspension would be dependent upon the outcome of the departmental proceeding. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, departmental proceeding remained pending, the fate of which is not known to him also since he got allocated to the State of Jharkhand in September 2004 pursuant to the bifurcation of the State of Bihar. After his allocation to Jharkhand he was posted at Baraj Division, Galudih, Ghatshila. Thereafter he got the benefit of 1st and 2nd A.C.P w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and 31.01.20003 respectively vide memo no. 234 dated 11.11.2006 (Annexure-7). He also got regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer vide memo no. 2005 dated 20.04.2011 (Annexure-8). After his allocation to Jharkhand he was posted at Baraj Division, Galudih, Ghatshila. Thereafter he got the benefit of 1st and 2nd A.C.P w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and 31.01.20003 respectively vide memo no. 234 dated 11.11.2006 (Annexure-7). He also got regular promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer vide memo no. 2005 dated 20.04.2011 (Annexure-8). He has also been granted 3rd M.A.C.P benefit vide memo no.2886 dated 19.10.2011 w.e.f 31.01.2009. As such, it is evident that his services have been treated as regular. After retirement, though he completed all formalities for payment of post retirement dues and also submitted representation before the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand vide Annexure-10, however only 90% gratuity and provisional pension was sanctioned and remaining 10% gratuity, leave encashment of 300 days have not been paid. Therefore, he has approached this Court seeking release of retiral benefits i.e., final pension, 10% gratuity, leave encashment of 300 days and full salary for the period of suspension. 4. Respondent Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand in its affidavit has conveyed that final pension and payment of balance gratuity has been withheld on account of the fact that the outcome of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner during his service under the parent State of Bihar is not yet known despite repeated correspondences made with their counterpart vide letter dated 31.05.2018 and 31.07.2018, Annexure-C series to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 19.09.2018. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this cannot be a reason for withholding the leave encashment amount. 6. From the aforesaid relevant material facts culled out from the pleadings on record, it is evident that petitioner''s pension, gratuity are not being finalized by the respondent Department for the reason that fate of the departmental proceeding initiated in the State of Bihar vide memo dated 03.05.1994 is not known to them. However, there is no reason why leave encashment has not been paid. In these circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, it seems appropriate to direct the newly added State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department to supply all the relevant papers relating to the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide memo no. 03.05.1994 within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 03.05.1994 within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The competent authority under the respondent, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand would thereafter take a decision in the matter taking into account the outcome of the departmental proceeding as well within a period of 4 weeks. Let an affidavit be filed by the respondent State of Bihar on conclusion of the 6 weeks period showing compliance of the order in the present matter. The competent authority under the State of Jharkhand would in any case proceed to take a decision within time stipulated above. Admissible dues be released without any delay thereafter. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. I.A. No.6304 of 2018 also stands disposed of.