AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: - - "(I) For quashing the orders issued vide Bihar State Electricity Board 'sletter No. 2051, dated 31.7.1999 (Annexure 5) communicating the Board 'sresolution No. 2050, dated 30.7.1999 wherein one increment of the petitioner was stopped with non - cumulative effect and censured with entry in his ACR for the year 1991 -91 in view of the Audit report for the year 1991 -92 which was communicated to the petitioner vide Board 'sletter No. 1314, dated 17.6.1995 asking for an explanation which was also submitted by the petitioner vide his letter dated 5.7.1995 but the aforesaid Board 'sresolution was taken and communicated to the petitioner without any further departmental proceeding and, opportunity of hearing just before two months of his date of retirement which was to commence with effect from 30.9.1999 in view of the repeated observations/dtrections by this Hon ble Court. (II) To quash the letter issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board vide letter No. 2857, dated 18.11.1999 (Annexure 9) communicating the Board 'sresolution No. 2856, dated 18.11.1999 in lieu of the aforesaid Board 'sresolution bearing No. 2050, dated 30.7.1999 (Annexure 5) with the expression that no increment being due after 1.8.1997 to the petitioner, 10% of the gratuity amount payable after retirement of the petitioner which occurred on 30.9.1999 may be deducted. The said increment was in fact due as stated by the respondent No. 6 vide his letter No. 3293, dated 16.10.1999 (Annexure 7). (III) For commanding upon the respondents for payment of the balance retiral dues as under : - - (a) Arrears of pension amount alongwith payment of the current pension amount on the new scale on the basis of pay revision w.e.f. 1.1.1996 i.e., Rs. 11,020,00 as fixed by the respondent No. 4 by his order dated 21.11.2000 (Annexure 11). (b) Gratuity amount without any deduction as proposed by the aforesaid order on the pay fixed vide the order issued by the respondent No. 6 dated 21.11.2000 (Annexure 11). (c) Leave encashment for the unavailed leave for 134 days. (d) Other legal dues as admissible to the petitioner. (e) Permissible interest on the aforesaid amount due alongwith cost for the deliberate delay caused by the respondents in making payment of the retiral dues.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was the employee of Bihar State Electricity Board and the retired on 30.9.1999 working as Accountant under Urban Electric Supply Division No. II, Ranchi now under Jharkhand State Electricity Board. While he was in service he received a notice to show cause as to why a disciplinary proceeding be not initiated against him alongwith an audit report vide Annexure 1 stating therein that while he was posted at electric supply division, Jamui and was Incharge of Cashier, certain irregularities were done by him in maintenance of temporary cash advance accounts as mentioned in the audit report in violation of the Financial and Accounts Code and thereby he failed to discharge his duty properly which amounted to temporary embezzlement of Board 'smoney. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegation against him by letter dated 8.7.1995. The grievance of the petitioner is that by issue of Annexure -5 i.e., the resolution dated 30.7.1999 without even initiating a departmental proceeding against him, punishment has been imposed upon him for censure and stoppage of one increment with non -cumulative effect. The censure was to be entered to his ACR for the year 1991 -92. Further grievance of the petitioner is that by issue of Annexure -9 dated 18.11.1999 the said order as contained in Annexure -5 was modified and it was ordered that in lieu of stoppage of one annual increment with non -cumulative effect his 10% gratuity will be deducted from his salary.
(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner submitted his representation dated 4.1.2000 before respondent No. 1 but no heed was paid to his representation and the order as contained in Annexure -9 was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders as contained in Annexure -9 was issued after the superannuation of the petitioner without initiating any departmental proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rule and, therefore, in view of the decision in the case of Gopal Prasad V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 169, the same is absolutely bad in law.;