Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 666 (JHR)

Shiv Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-03-07

DEEPAK ROSHAN, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2019
ORDER : 1. The writ-petitioner, who is the appellant, is aggrieved of the order dated 21.07.2017 by which the writ petition has been dismissed. 2. By the impugned order dated 21.07.2017, challenge by the appellant before the writ Court to the order by which his pension has been forfeited by 50% has failed. 3. Two-fold submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the appellant: (i) second marriage of the appellant prior to enforcement of the Conduct Rules of 1976 would not amount to misconduct. (ii) forfeiture of 50% pension when two out of four charges have not been found proved is excessive. 4. The appellant who was appointed in the year 1971 was served a charge-memo on 29.11.2006 in which four charges were framed against him. The charges are: (i) he has contracted second marriage during the lifetime of his first wife, (ii) he has tortured his first wife and threatened to kill her, (iii) illegal withdrawal of G.P.F. and (iv) harassment to the subordinates. After the enquiry report was submitted on 12.09.2007, a second show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 08.10.2007. In the meantime, the appellant superannuated from service on 31.07.2008. 5. In view of the Full Bench decision in Shambhu Saran vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2000 (1) PLJR 665 , on superannuation of the appellant from service on 31.07.2008 the departmental proceeding stood converted under the Pension Rules. 6. The disciplinary authority has inflicted penalty of forfeiture of 50% pension under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000. 7. The appellant does not deny that he has contracted marriage with one Basanti Devi while his wife-Samudri Devi was alive. This charge has been found proved by the enquiring-officer. The charge of torture and threat to his first wife by the appellant has not been found proved by the enquiring-officer and the charge of harassing his sub-ordinates is also not proved. But, the charge of illegal withdrawal from G.P.F. by furnishing false declaration has been found proved. The second marriage of the appellant, may be solemnized prior to enforcement of the Conduct Rules 1976, still subsists and its effect is continuing. As on the date when a charge-memo was served upon him, he is married to two women and thus has incurred the wrath of misconduct under the Conduct Rules. 8. The second marriage of the appellant, may be solemnized prior to enforcement of the Conduct Rules 1976, still subsists and its effect is continuing. As on the date when a charge-memo was served upon him, he is married to two women and thus has incurred the wrath of misconduct under the Conduct Rules. 8. If all the charges framed against him were found not proved by the enquiring officer, it is an issue pertaining to quantum of punishment. Charges of second marriage and illegal withdrawal of G.P.F. amount have been found proved. These are grave charges for a government employee. The punishment of forfeiture of 50% pension is excessive is not an issue which normally can be agitated before the writ Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Unless it is demonstrated that the punishment awarded to the delinquent-employee is so disproportionate to the charges framed and found proved that it does violence to the logic or shocks the conscience of the Court, no interference with the order of punishment is permissible. Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1987 PLJR (SC) 79. 9. In view of the charges which have been found proved against the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that forfeiture of 50% pension is not excessive. 10. On delay in initiating the departmental proceeding against the appellant on account of which according to the appellant the charge of second marriage has become stale, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decisions in P.V. Mahadevan vs. Md T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 and M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 . 11. To the above contention, it needs to be indicated that it was on a complaint made by his first wife that the appellant was harassing and threatening her fact of his second marriage came into the light. The delay, if any, in initiating the departmental proceeding against him thus cannot be attributed to the department, rather it was on account of a fraud played by the appellant. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts, finding no infirmity in the writ Court's order dated 21.07.2017, L.P.A. No. 446 of 2017 is dismissed.