Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 417 (JHR)

Sharat Chandra Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-10

RAVI RANJAN, S.N.PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : 1. This appeal is an intra-court appeal directed against the decision dated 12.4.2018 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5794 of 2013. 2. Facts in brief, which would be necessary for consideration of the lis stands enumerated as under: 3. The appellant-writ petitioner joined Subordinate Education Service as Assistant Teacher on 3.7.1971. He was promoted to the post of Lecturer on 3.2.1991 and was posted in Bokaro, Pindrajora Training School. Thereafter in the year 1994 the appellant-writ petitioner was again promoted to the post of Block Education Extension Officer and was transferred to Rania, Ranchi. The writ petitioner was made accused in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30/2003 and was deemed suspended on 16.9.2003. However, suspension of the writ petitioner was revoked on 30.12.2005 and he was posted as Block Education Extension Officer, Deoghar. The appellant-writ petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Headmaster, Middle School, Hazaribagh on 31.8.2008. However, later on he was convicted in the aforesaid vigilance case on 19.12.2012. Subsequently, he has been granted bail in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1157 of 2012. 4. However, as the appellant-writ petitioner was not getting any retiral benefits like Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc., he approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) 5794/2013 for grant of such relief. However, the writ petition was dismissed by the order impugned holding that after having retired from the service, vide judgment dated 19.12.2012 the writ petitioner-appellant was convicted in a criminal case against which he has preferred criminal appeal and under Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, future good conduct is an implied condition for grant of pension and conviction of the writ petitioner in a criminal case is a proof in itself that conduct of the writ petitioner was not good during his service tenure. 5. In the aforesaid background of factual matrix, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner as well as for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that the pension and other retiral benefits could not have been automatically stopped in view of the conviction, Moreover, the date of conviction is 19.12.2012 whereas, the writ petitioner-appellant was entitled for getting the retiral benefits Including pension on' the date of his retirement, i.e. 31.8.2008. 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that the pension and other retiral benefits could not have been automatically stopped in view of the conviction, Moreover, the date of conviction is 19.12.2012 whereas, the writ petitioner-appellant was entitled for getting the retiral benefits Including pension on' the date of his retirement, i.e. 31.8.2008. The issue regarding application of Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 came to be considered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Nityanand Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [ 2016(2) PLJR 315 ]. The Division Bench, while answering the reference made by the learned Single Judge, has held as under; "Before coming to the proviso which consists of three clauses (a), (b) and (c) along with an explanation provided after clause (c), it is obvious from a comparison of Rule 43(a) with Rule 43(b) that the former relates to future good conduct of a pensioner and the same may be invoked if he is convicted of serious crime or is held guilty of grave misconduct, The serious crime or grave misconduct under this provision, i.e. Rule 43(a) is not related to his conduct during service and/or service rendered on re-employment. It is a conduct expected of a pensioner In future after he is granted a pension. Thus, there is clear distinction between the aim and object of Rule 43(a) and that of Rule 43(b). Both the provisions operate in different areas having different connotations. The decision under rule 43(a) is not on account of any departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding instituted when the government servant was in service or instituted later in respect of an event which related to his service rendered before retirement or on re-employment. On the other hand, the purpose of Rule 43(b) is clearly to enable the State Government to continue or initiate a departmental or judicial proceeding in respect of omissions or commissions by a government servant done while he was in service. Such provision in the rules governing pension vests the State Government with necessary powers to maintain action against a retired government employee for his conduct while in service but subject to some restrictions mentioned in the proviso. The purpose of proviso is to safeguard pensioners or superannuated employees from loss of pension on account of belated disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings. The purpose of proviso is to safeguard pensioners or superannuated employees from loss of pension on account of belated disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings. On the other hand, the future good conduct mentioned in Rule 43(a) is good conduct expected of every government servant even after superannuation. Such future conduct is not related to his service period at all. Hence, the requirement of proviso (a) (ii) cannot apply to Rule 43(a). Such provision in the proviso puts a restriction upon the power of the State Government to initiate a departmental proceeding if not instituted while the government servant was in service, either before retirement or during re-employment. Such departmental proceeding, by virtue of the provision under consideration cannot be in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. Rule 43(a) comes into play after retirement and applies till pensioner breathes his last. There can be no question of time limitation for exercise of such power because this Rule is not at all connected with any departmental proceeding. Rule 43(a) nowhere refers to any departmental proceeding instituted earlier or to be instituted later. Hence, it cannot be governed by proviso (a)(ii) to Rule 43(b) as it can apply only to initiation of departmental proceeding by the Government after an employee has retired." 7. It would be apparent from the perusal of the aforesaid judgment that the Division Bench of Patna High Court has held that Rule 43(a) has nothing to do with the past service or any misconduct of the pensioner during the course of his service, rather it is with respect to future conduct of the concerned employee and admittedly, though the petitioner has been held to be guilty after his retirement in a case which was instituted during the period of his service but the same was with respect to his conduct during the said period. 8. Thus, we are also in respectful agreement with the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court on the issue in Nityanand Kumar Singh (supra) and thus, we hold that the Pension, Gratuity or other retiral benefits could not have been withheld by the State authorities and that too without assigning any reason, under Rule 43(a). 9. 8. Thus, we are also in respectful agreement with the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court on the issue in Nityanand Kumar Singh (supra) and thus, we hold that the Pension, Gratuity or other retiral benefits could not have been withheld by the State authorities and that too without assigning any reason, under Rule 43(a). 9. So far Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules is concerned, if any action is contemplated under the aforesaid provision, then the requirement would be of issuance of notice to the affected person and after granting opportunity of hearing, a reasoned order should be passed in consultation with Bihar Public Service Commission and it goes without saying that such action is to be taken by the State Government. Admittedly, nothing having been done in the present case, in our view, the respondents were not at all authorised to withhold pension and other retiral benefits. 10. Accordingly, we would direct them to make such payment expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. In the result, this appeal succeeds and the order impugned is set aside. 12. The concerned writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. 13. However, this order would not come in the way of the State Government in initiation of any proceeding, if required in accordance with law.