SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH, Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Shyam Narayan Singh,
STATE OF BIHAR
Click here to view full judgement.
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH,J. -
(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent Mines Department and the learned counsel for the State, Shri Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, AC to GP-3.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of punishment dated 20.03.2019 passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and where-under 50% pension of the petitioner herein has been forfeited and further it has been stipulated that the period starting from 28.03.2014, i.e the date of the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service to the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.10.2017, shall be treated as period under suspension and the petitioner would not be entitled to any amount, over and above the subsistence allowance, however, the said period shall be counted for the purposes of calculation of pension.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2011 while the petitioner was posted as Mining Inspector at Jehanabad and was given additional charge of Mining Inspector, Gaya, his residential house was raided and fixed deposits/ NSCs/ huge amount of bank deposits, cash amount and jewellery were seized leading to filing of a criminal case bearing Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 75 of 2011, whereafter the petitioner was taken into custody and subsequently he was put under suspension. A Vigilance case bearing Vigilance case no. 35 of 2011 was also registered against the petitioner under section 13(i) and 13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as also under section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated and memo of charge along with the documents relied upon was served upon the petitioner on 23.03.2012 and an enquiry officer as also a Presenting Officer was appointed. Finally the enquiry report was submitted on 15.11.2014 wherein all the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to have been proved and then a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner had filed his reply and then the disciplinary authority had passed the order of punishment dated 28.03.2014, whereby and where-under the petitioner was dismissed from service. The said order of punishment dated 28.03.2014 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 9313 of 2014 and this Court, by an order dated 08.09.2017, had held that the enquiry officer did not hold enquiry in accordance with the procedures laid down under Sub-rule (11) and other sub-rules of Section 17 of the CCA Rules, 2005, consequently, the impugned order of punishment dated 28.03.2014 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law and conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. The said order dated 08.09.2017 passed in CWJC No. 9313 of 2014 was challenged by the respondents by filing an appeal bearing LPA No. 1815 of 2017 and a learned Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 16.08.2018, had upheld the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.09.2017, however, the period of six months granted to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding was directed to commence from the date of the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench, nonetheless it was also observed that since the petitioner herein had superannuated on 31.10.2017, the nature of penalty, if any, to be imposed, may undergo a change, inasmuch as the same would now have to be guided by the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 in case the disciplinary authority/ State is of the opinion that the allegation of misconduct is of such a nature, which would require such punishment.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.