- (1.) : The petitioner was under the employment of the Bihar State Electricity Board since the date of his appointment on 09.12.1957. He retired from service on 28.02.1998 as a Meter Reader from the Dhanbad Circle of the B.S.E.B. Prior to his retirement, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on 13.10.1997 on the charge that without prior approval of the Board he purchased land at Hirapur vide two separate sale deeds dated 24.03.1972, 15.10.1977 and 07.05.1978 respectively in the name of his wife and son and thereafter constructed two storied building upon the land. On the allegation of such misconduct, a departmental proceeding was initiated. The proceeding continued even after the petitioners retirement from service and was concluded on 28.06.2000. The petitioner was found guilty in the proceeding and by way of punishment, 5% of his pension was to be deducted. By the impugned order dated 11.02.2003, the deduction of 5% from the pension of the petitioner was ordered. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid impugned order in this writ application.
(2.) ASSAILING the impugned order, Shri R.S.Mazumdar learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the departmental proceeding which was initiated during the service period of the petitioner and continued even after his superannuation but with -holding of pension can be made only if the charges leveled against him are of causing financial loss to the employer either due to misconduct or negligence. Referring to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that misconduct per se, not causing financial loss, does not confer any right on the employer to make any recovery from the pension of the delinquent employee. Learned counsel, in this context, refers to and relies upon the judgement of the Patna High Court in the case of Ball Ram Thakur v/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and another 1995 Vol. 2 PLJR page 609 and the judgement in the case of Amod Ranjan Sinha v/s. State of Bihar and others 1999 Vol. 3 PLJR page 496. Per contra, the stand taken by the respondent B.S.E.B. through the counter affidavit filed by them is that while the petitioner was in service, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the charge that he had amassed disproportionate assets beyond his known sources of income. The departmental proceeding continued even after the retirement of the petitioner from service and he was found guilty. Shri A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents would argue that under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, it is within the competence of the employer to with -hold either full or any part of the pension of the delinquent employee if he is found guilty of grave misconduct. Learned counsel adds that in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, the charge was proved against him and he was held guilty. The departmental proceeding was conducted strictly according to the rules of procedure and before imposing the punishment, a second show cause was also served upon the petitioner to enable him to submit his replies which he did and the same was considered by the competent authorities.
(3.) THE issue raised for determination is whether in the facts and circumstances of the petitioners case under the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules the respondent authorities had the power to with -hold any portion of the pension of the petitioner ? The contention of the respondents is that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was on the charge of his having amassed disproportionate assets beyond his known sources of income. However, from the substance of charge, a copy of which has been annexed with the writ application, it appears that the charge against him was that without prior approval of his employer, the petitioner had purchased lands in the name of his wife and son and had constructed a double storied building thereon. There is apparently no charge which could suggest that he had amassed wealth beyond his known sources of income disproportionately or that he had indulged in any act of "grave misconduct . ;