Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3961 of 2013 Babulal Sahu son of late Bandhu Sahu, resident of Village Langi, P.O. Khora, P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Higher Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, H.E.C. Township, Project Building, Ranchi.
3. The Director, Higher Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, H.E.C. Township, Project Building, Ranchi.
4. The District Superintendent Education, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District Gumla. ... Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK --- For the Petitioner : M/s Indrajit Sinha & Arpan Mishra, Advocates For the Respondents : J.C to G.P. I ….... 04/02.02.2017 In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the entire departmental proceeding and for direction to respondents to pay the retiral dues including pension, gratuity in terms of the recommendation of the VIth Pay Revision Committee along with statutory interest.
2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application is that in the year, 1982 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher at Government Middle School, Patiya, Gumla, thereafter the petitioner continued to discharge his duties most diligently without any complaints whatsoever but unfortunately in the year, 2000 a complaint case under Section 147/379 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against the petitioner and the petitioner in the trial court has been convicted vide judgment dated 22.02.2006 and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Gumla has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred revision in Criminal Revision No.128 of 2007. While, the petitioner put under custody, he was suspended with effect from 19.02.2007 till 23.03.2009. While continuing under suspension, charge sheet in the departmental proceeding alongwith the imputation of charges has been served on the petitioner vide Annexure-4 series to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from services with effect from 31.08.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. It has been averred in the writ application that after retirement, the petitioner has received gratuity taking into consideration the computation of 28 years of services rendered by the petitioner excluding two years and four months. Since, the petitioner has not been paid his entire post retiral dues alongwith interest on the pretext of continuation of proceeding even after retirement, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in continuing the departmental proceeding after superannuation is not legally sustainable, since after retirement the relationship of employer and employee has ceased. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to decision reported in (2014) 7 SCC260paragraph 8 and 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since there has not been any pecuniary loss to the Government. Therefore, Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rule cannot be resorted to inflict any punishment after his retirement.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that since the petitioner has been convicted in the criminal case and so under Rule 43(B) of the Pension Rules, the respondents are legally competent to withhold full or part of the pension.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that though the departmental proceeding has been initiated in the 2007, no final order has been passed on the said proceeding till the retirement of the petitioner. In the meantime, more than 9 years have elapsed, there has been no progress in the departmental proceeding. It would be apposite to refer Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rule which is quoted hereunder:- Rule 43(b):- The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re- employment after retirement. Provided that- (a) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment. (i) Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government. (ii) Shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. (iii) Shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made. (b) Judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment shall have been instituted in accordance with sub clause (ii) of clause (a); and (c) The Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed.
6. In view of the aforesaid position, the proceeding which has been initiated is deemed to proceed under Rule 43(B) of the Pension Rule. View of this Court gets fortified in decision reported in (2003) 2 JCR712 In view of the aforesaid legal proposition and relevant provisions of the Pension Rules, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent to conclude the proceeding, if not concluded, within a period of four months from date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the proceeding stands concluded in favour of the petitioner or no finding is given so far as the culpability of the petitioner with regard to causing pecuniary loss to the Government, the respondent authorities shall do well to pay all admissible retiral dues thereafter preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of conclusion of the departmental proceeding.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) RKM