Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
(2.) THIS writ application has been filed for quashing of the Notification issued vide Memo No. 3797(S) dated 01.08.2009 (Annexure -11) whereby an order has been passed imposing major penalty of withholding 10% pension of the petitioner on permanent basis and at the same time excess amount drawn towards pension was ordered to be recovered. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Inquiry Officer in a departmental proceeding initiated against suspended Assistant Engineer, namely, Sri Manish Kumar, who had been charged of defalcating a sum of Rs. 41,56,076/ - and also for not submitting account of Rs. 1,38,69,351/ -. For conducting the said departmental proceeding, one Officer was appointed as Presenting Officer. When on account of non appearance of delinquent, departmental proceeding could not be concluded information of it was given by the petitioner to the department. Upon it, a direction was given to the petitioner to proceed ex parte and to conclude it within the time stipulated therein. In spite of that, effort allegedly was not taken to conclude it and as such it remained un -concluded and, therefore, a departmental proceeding was initiated against this petitioner wherein the petitioner was imputed with following two charges: - (I) The petitioner did not proceed ex parte against the delinquent -Sri Manish Kumar in spite of direction being given in this regard to proceed ex parte and to conclude it within the stipulated time. (II) The petitioner being the Engineer -in -Chief was aware of the fact that the first information report has been lodged against Sri Manish Kumar for misappropriation of huge amount, he should have proceeded even ex parte but decline to proceed with the matter on the plea that for the said allegation F.I.R. has been lodged which amounts to dereliction of the duty, thereby, the petitioner was charged to have acted in the matter, which in contravention of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976.
(3.) THE proceeding was initiated on 08.05.2008. During that proceeding, the petitioner retired on his superannuation on 30.09.2008. Thereupon on 29.10.2008, the proceeding was converted into a proceeding as contemplated under Section 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000. Upon its conclusion, the inquiry officer submitted its report by giving finding that the delinquent though has not been found guilty for the charge of disobedience of the order of a superior, but is guilty of the charge of dereliction of the duty as he had shown his indifference in discharge of his duty and thereby it was concluded that the petitioner's conduct was contrary to Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976. It be stated that his conduct was not found contrary to Rule 3(1)(i) of the said Rule.;