- (1.) THE petitioner superannuated from Government service w.e.f. 31.1.1996. His final pension was already sanctioned on 22.12.1995. However, when his retiral benefits were not paid to him, he moved the High Court in C.WJ.C. No. 3020 of 1997(R). By order dated 8.7.1998, the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry was directed to issue Sanction Order for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner within two weeks with 10% interest. However, only 90% amount of pension, G.P.F. and group insurance were paid to the petitioner and gratuity, Earned leave, 10% of pension, etc. were not paid and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court again.
(2.) A counter -affidavit dated 16.4.2001 was filed in which it was pointed out that a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was initiated against the petitioner. No document in support of such statement was placed on record. It was submitted that the petitioner has been made accused in four cases relating to Fodder Scam and charge -sheet was filed. On 14.2.2013, when the matter was listed for hearing, this Court directed the parties to ascertain the position with respect to proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules and pursuant to such direction, the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit dated 28.2.2003 bringing on record the show -cause notice dated 14.1.2008 issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the so -called proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, which allegedly was initiated against the petitioner, was never brought on record. The petitioner was never issued any show -cause notice and no intimation was given to the petitioner with respect to initiation of any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.1.2008 requiring him to show -cause -within one week indicating therein that in terms of Rules 43(a) and (b) of Bihar Pension Rules, why full pension of the petitioner be not withdrawn permanently. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the pensionary benefits of the petitioner cannot be withdrawn by issuing the executive order as contained in 14.1.2008.;