- (1.) THE petitioner, who was working as Head Clerk in the Animal Husbandry Department, Dumka, was put under suspension by order dated 14.02.1996. The petitioner was implicated in several cases relating to Fodder Scam. The petitioner moved Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10644 of 1998 and by order dated 30.08.1999, the order of suspension of the petitioner was quashed. The petitioner superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.08.2004 and his provisional pension was fixed by letter dated 05.09.2005. However, as the retiral benefits of the petitioner was not paid to him, the petitioner made representation to the authorities and finally moved this Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking direction upon the respondents for release of full pension, full gratuity, unutilized leave, etc. and for grant of benefits under A.C.P.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.2, in which, it has been pointed out that in view of the grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner in Fodder Scam cases, it was ordered that the petitioner would remain under suspension. The petitioner was made accused in atleast three cases in Fodder Scam and he was granted pardon by the Court and permitted to be made a prosecution witness. A copy of order dated 31.12.2006 has been brought on record, whereunder, it was decided to withhold 10% pension, gratuity, earned leave, etc. of the petitioner. Subsequently, order dated 29.01.2007 was also passed, whereby it was ordered that the payment of salary and allowances admissible to the petitioner during the period of his suspension would be decided only after the decision in the criminal cases. And, by order dated 25.08.2009, it was ordered that the petitioner would not be entitled for any payment, except the subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. An interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 1211 of 2010 was filed challenging orders dated 29.01.2007 and 25.08.2009 seeking amendment in the writ petition. The said interlocutory application was allowed by order dated 24.01.2013. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record.
(3.) MR . Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his arguments to sustainability of Annexure 7 dated 29.01.2007 and Annexure 8 dated 25.08.2009. Learned counsel has submitted that orders dated 29.01.2007 and 25.08.2009 were issued without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. Admittedly, no proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules was ever initiated against the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order dated 29.01.2007 is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that before resorting to Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, a second show cause notice should have been issued to the petitioner, which has not been done in the present case and therefore, order dated 25.08.2009 is also liable to be quashed.;