Judgment:
ORDER
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:
(1) For an appropriate writ in the nature of certorari for quashing the order dated 13.3.2002 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Labour. Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner whereby it has been decided that the petitioner will not get his salary for the period 30.10.1999 to 8.12.1999 i.e., for the period in which the petitioner was in custody and further it has been decided that the said period will be treated as a break in his service and a further punishment has been inflicted that 10% of his pension be deducted with cumulative effect.
(2) For a further writ of or in the nature of mandamus be issued from this Hon'ble Court directing the concerned respondents to pay the entire retiral benefits of the petitioner forthwith and immediately without giving effect to the order impugned.
2. The facts in brief are stated as under:
The petitioner joined as Inspector of Factories pursuant to selection through Bihar Public Service Commission on 1.9.1965 and his services were confirmed on 1.11.1974. On 30.10.1989 the petitioner was involved in a criminal case for demand and taking bribe and he was accordingly arrested and latter on 9.12.1999 he was released on bail. However, on 18.3.2000 final form was submitted in the criminal case with an observation that the case was false and accordingly on 24.5.2000 the criminal case was dropped. On 16.12.1999 the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, suspended the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Bihar Service Code from the date of his arrest till further order. On 31.8.2000 the Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi Bench in CWJC No. 1036 of 2000 quashed the suspension order with a liberty to pass fresh order of suspension under Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code. Petitioner joined his duty after bail and informed his joining to the authorities vide letter No. 258/C, dated 10.12.1999 which was received on 14.12.1999.
It appears that the suspension order was withdrawn on 24.10.2001 but the salary for the period of custody was withheld and a departmental proceeding was initiated and memorandum of charge was handed over. The petitioner preferred CWJC No. 342 of 2001 before this Court and a direction was issued to conclude the departmental proceeding within three months. On 26.4.2001 the petitioner was informed by letter dated 3.3.2001 that the departmental proceeding was being converted under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules.
3. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that once the criminal case was dropped and closed there was no need for initiation of disciplinary proceeding. It has further been contended that the order was illegal, without any reason and showed a total non-application of mind.
4. It has also been alleged that no second show-cause notice was given before inflicting such punishment and further a double proceeding on the self same charges could not continue in view of the criminal case having been dropped. More so when the petitioner has already retired.
5. The respondent in their counter-affidavit have submitted that the criminal case was dropped since the informant stopped taking interest and the department was fully empowered to initiate departmental proceeding against the delinquent employee for the charge which has not been decided by the criminal Court. It has also been stated that the full opportunity was given and after considering the enquiry report the order impugned and memo No. 84 dated 13.3.2002 was passed.
6. I have considered the rival contention and the submission and at the very outset it would be relevant to clarify that the law with regard to parallel proceeding are well settled and both the criminal proceedings as well as the departmental proceeding can continue simultaneously.
7. In the instant case the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner before his superannuation on 31.1.2001 and after his retirement the same was converted into a proceeding under Section 43(B) of Bihar Pension Rules-1950 which has the provisions to deal with the retired employee against whom the enquiry is pending or even contemplated for the charges of misconduct causing pecuniary loss to the. Government or any criminal charge. It is also clear that the criminal case was dropped on technical ground and the petitioner was not honorably discharged. In any case even acquittal in a criminal case does not bar domestic/disciplinary enquiry.
8. The fact remains that proper opportunity was given and there was full compliance of the principles of natural justice. However, the petitioner did not cooperate in the departmental proceeding in-spite of orders passed by this Court and it was in these background that the proceeding was ex-parte.
9. The impugned order dated 13.3.2002 has been passed after thorough and careful examination of the facts and after considering the enquiry report. Even the approval has been obtained from the Bihar Public Service Commission under Rule 49 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition and the same being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.