TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing the resolution dated 4.4.2000 (Annexure -7) being resolution No. 785, a copy whereof was forwarded to the petitioner vide Memo No. 786 whereby and where under the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of 'stoppage of 5% of pension'. The petitioner has also prayed that after quashing of, the aforesaid resolution, a direction be made upon the respondents (respondent No. 3 in particular) to release 5% of the withheld pension.
(2.) THE short facts which are necessary to be taken note of are that after having been appointed as an Assistant Electrical Engineer, he was promoted to the post of an Executive Engineer in April 1976. Thereafter, in January, 1992, the petitioner was promoted to the post of a Superintendent Engineer. On 28.2.1997, the petitioner superannuated from service. It appears from the pleadings that on 5.5.1997, the respondent -Board withheld 10% of pension plus Gratuity and Leave Encashment on the ground of pendency of departmental proceedings. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as CWJC No. 1969 of 1997(R). The writ petition was allowed on 27.10.1997 and the aforementioned order dated 5.9.1997 was quashed and the Board was directed to take a final decision in the departmental proceeding pending against him as expeditiously as possible, but preferably within 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Upon perusal of the order of this Court passed on 27.10.1997, quashing the order dated 5.5.1997, it appears that in 1994, a charge -sheet was served on the petitioner for some irregularities said to have been committed by him in the year 1984 -85. One day prior to his retirement, i.e. on 27.2.1997, the inquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were unjustified. These facts were not controverted by the Board in their counter -affidavit as is evident from the order dated 27.10.1997 passed in CWJC No. 1969 of 1997(R). It further appears that the only, ground the respondents took in that writ application was that because of delay on the part of the petitioner in filing reply to the charge -sheet, the proceedings were not concluded before his superannuation and that the proceedings were still pending. The aforementioned plea of the Board was not accepted by this Court in that writ application and on the contrary, the Court expressed surprise that if some irregularities had been committed in the year 1984, the Board served charge -sheet after a lapse of 10 (ten) years and even thereafter the inquiry officer held that the charges were unjustified. In that view of the matter, the earlier writ Court did not find any justification on the part of the respondents in withholding Gratuity and Leave Encashment. However, taking into consideration the plea that the proceeding was pending, withholding of 10% pension was observed as would be meeting the ends of justice and to that extent the writ application was allowed insofar as it related to withholding of Gratuity and Leave Encashment only and with the observations mentioned above. In other words, the matter relating to withholding of 10% of pension was to await the final outcome of the departmental proceedings.
(3.) IT was thereafter, that on ,31.3.1999, the Board served a show cause notice/resolution upon the petitioner asking him to explain as to why 50% of the amount paid to one Shib Shankar Roy, Khalasht during the period of 1.10.1992 to 30.6.1996 be not recovered at the rate of Rs. 1000/ - per month from the pension of the petitioner.;