- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred to quash the impugned order, as contained in Memo No. 2491 dated 28.4.2001, issued by respondent no. 2, imposing punishment of withholding 10% of pension, recovery of amount and withholding the balance salary during the period of suspension. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to forthwith pay him the gratuity, leave safary and pension with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(2.) THE facts, as stated by the petitioner, in brief, are set out as under: The petitioner was posted as Block Co -operative Extension Officer and was put under suspension on 7.1.1998. On 30.1.1999 the petitioner superannuated from the post of Block Co -operative Extension Officer. After retirement, a charge -sheet was issued vide letter no. 5127 dated 23.8.1999 and reply was asked for. However, vide memo no. 1512 dated 13.3.2000 respondent no. 2 revoked the order of suspension from the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.1.1999. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause, denying the charges. It has been submitted that the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being C.WJ.C. No. 480 of 1998(R) against the order of suspension and the Hon 'ble High Court vide its order dated 30.9.1999 was pleased to dispose of the writ application with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the departmental proceedings within six months. It has also been pointed out that vide another letter under memo no. 6487 dated 25.10.2000 the petitioner was served with second show cause notice to which he gave reply and, thereafter, the impugned order under memo no. 2491 dated 28.4.2001 was issued, imposing punishment of withholding 10% of pension, recovery of amount and withholding of balance salary during the period of suspension. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order through this writ petition on the ground that the same was unjust, unlawful and without jurisdiction and was also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also challenged the aforesaid order being violative of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 and the same is said to be against the well settled principles of natural justice.
(3.) THE case of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the order of punishment was based on the enquiry report, after giving full opportunity and the charges against the petitioner were 'absence from duty and not taking interest in collection of co -operative loans, misappropriating the funds and other charges'. It has also been stated that during the period of suspension, the petitioner retired from service with effect from 30.1.1999 and with the permission of the Secretary, Co -operative Department, the departmental proceedings were converted under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules by issuance of memo no. 3261 dated 6.6.2000. The case of the respondents is that on the basis of the outcome in the departmental proceedings, after giving second show cause notice and considering the show cause reply, submitted by the petitioner, the punishment was imposed, which is sought to be challenged here.;