- (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 wherein respondent No.2 has taken a decision that petitioner is not entitled for payment of gratuity.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Director (Planning) in the department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, a case was registered against the petitioner on 04.02.1996. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was suspended from his services on 08.02.1996 and was finally terminated from services on 11.03.1996. Being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 11.03.1996, the petitioner filed a writ application bearing C.W.J.C No.362 of 2000 before this Hon'ble Court for quashing the termination order which was dismissed on 14.11.2002 on the ground of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Patna High Court for quashing of the order of termination dated 11.03.1996 vide C.W.J.C. No.6766 of 2003 which was allowed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court vide order dated 26.08.2003 and the Hon'ble Patna High Court has been pleased to observe that "in accordance with the submission of the parties, the order contained in Annexure-3 is hereby quashed. The State Government within a period of four months from the date of the submission/receipt of a copy of this order shall pass necessary orders into the entitlement of the petitioner. The State would also be obliged to give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner into the said matter, because the petitioner in case of any adverse order, would be adversely affected in his monetary gains." The petitioner got superannuated from services on 30.06.2001. No order was passed for payment of retiral benefit although no disciplinary proceeding had ever been initiated against the petitioner but the petitioner was convicted in connection with R.C. Case No.2(A)/98 on 20.03.1996. Due to non-payment of retiral benefit, the petitioner moved before this Hon'ble Court vide W.P.(S) No.6098 of 2007 for payment of retiral benefit admissible to the petitioner w.e.f. 30.06.2001 to 19.03.2006 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 28.05.2010 by this Hon'ble Court remitting the matter back to the concerned respondent authorities to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law regarding the payment of gratuity to the petitioner to which he was entitled, immediately after the date of his retirement. Such decision shall be taken in accordance with the principles of law as laid down in the case of Dudhnath Pandey within a period of two months from the date of this order. Pursuant to the direction passed by this Hon'ble Court on 28.05.2010, the respondent authority issued show cause to the petitioner on 24.09.2010 as to why gratuity payable to the petitioner be not withheld and the petitioner submitted his reply on 28.09.2010 but the respondent authorities has passed the impugned order on 26.11.2010 holding that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of gratuity in view of the fact that since the petitioner has been convicted in several judicial proceedings wherein future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension and pension includes gratuity under Section 27 of Jharkhand Pension Rules. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.11.2010, left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance.
(3.) Per contra, respondents have filed counter-affidavit repelling the contentions made in the writ application. In the counter- affidavit, it has been inter alia stated that the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 08.02.1996 of the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna due to the petitioner's involvement in fodder scam. Thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from services vide order dated 11.03.1996. If the petitioner was not dismissed from service, he would have been retired on 30.06.2001. In the light of the order dated 26.08.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6766 of 2003, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Bihar, Patna vide order dated 19.08.2004 decided the order regarding the petitioner's dismissal to be quashed and the decision was accepted by Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide order dated 16.03.2006. Thus, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2001 during suspension period. As per the records available in the department, the petitioner has been made accused in 24 Fodder Scam cases. A major amount of the Government fund is involved in above mentioned cases and the petitioner has been convicted and awarded punishment in 16 cases. The petitioner has been convicted in R.C. Case No.2(A)/98-AHD-Pat and the following punishment was awarded to the petitioner on 20.03.2006 by the court of learned Special Judge-III (C.B.I.-A.H.D.), Ranchi :- (i) R.I. for six years. (ii) Fine of Rs. 6,00,000/-. (iii) In default of payment of fine further R.I. for one year. Due to that conviction and punishment, the department vide order dated 31.12.2006 decided not to pay the amount of pension and gratuity permanently to the petitioner under Rule 43 of Jharkhand Pension Rules vide Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. Vide departmental letter dated 04.02.2010, it was decided that the petitioner will be entitled to get the 90% provisional pension for the period from 01.07.2001 to 19.03.2006. The authority slip has been issued by office of A.G., Jharkhand, Ranchi vide letter dated 24.02.2010. Again, the said office vide letter dated 09.04.2010 has fixed the petitioner's pension. In compliance of the interim order dated 17.04.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi in W.P.(S) No.6098 of 2007, leave encashment of 106 days has already been sanctioned vide departmental letter dated 25.05.2010. It has further been submitted in the counter-affidavit that the department vide order dated 25.05.2010 took a decision that the payment of gratuity would not be admissible to the petitioner because the decision taken vide departmental order dated 31.12.2006 has not been set aside by the competent Court of law. In pursuance to the order dated 28.05.2010 passed in W.P. (S) No.6098 of 2007, show- cause notice was issued vide departmental letter dated 24.09.2010 to the petitioner to explain as to why the gratuity amount should not be withheld. The reply was submitted by the petitioner on 28.09.2010. After perusal of the reply dated 28.09.2010 of show-cause notice received from the petitioner and records available in the concerned files, the department reached the following conclusions: (i) Show-cause dated 28.09.2010 submitted by Dr. K. M. Prasad has been found unsatisfactory. (ii) The petitioner Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad of W.P. (S) No.6098 of 2007 and the petitioner Dr. Dudhnath Pandey of L.P.A. No.714 of 2004 are of different nature, since Dr. Dudhnath Pandey, the then Key Village Officer, Lohardaga was an accused in Foddar Scam Case No. R.C.47(A)/96-Pat whereas petitioner has been convicted in several fodder scam cases and has been sentenced to RI with fine. (iii) The provision in Rule-43 of Jharkhand Pension Rules envisages that "Future good conduct of every grant of pension. The provincial Government reserves to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the provincial Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of a pension under this rule, shall be final and conclusive." Due to conviction and punishment/sentence in several judicial proceedings, the future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. According to Rule-27 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, "Pension includes gratuity." Therefore, in the light of above mentioned facts, the Government of Jharkhand vide order dated 26.11.2010 decided that the petitioner is not entitled to get the payment of the amount of "gratuity".;