Rajendra Singh vs The Bihar State Electricity Borad and Others

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.—This application has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 25.7.2001 whereby the Petitioner has been awarded punishment of reduction of 10% of pension under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

In view of the order which I propose to pass in this writ application, it is inexpedient to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that while the Petitioner was working as Upper Division Clerk in the Bihar State Electricity Board, he was put under suspension and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. Lateron, the order of suspension was revoked but the departmental proceeding continued,'' During the pendency of the departmental: inquiry, Petitioner retired but the proceeding continued. The Enquiry Officer exonerated; him of all the charges. When the report of the Enquiry Officer was placed for consideration before the disciplinary authority, it disagreed with the same and while doing! so, assigned various reasons and ultimately gave notice to the Petitioner to show cause as to why 10% of the pension be not withheld in exercise of the power under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules Petitioner submitted his reply and on consideration of the same, by the impugned order dated 25.7.2001 (Annexure-7), the punishment of withholding of 10% of pension has been passed. It is common ground that the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the Petitioner from, the charges and the discpilinary authority while issuing notice again the proposed punishment, assigned reasons for disagreement with the finding (sic) the Enquiry Officer but has given opportunity to the Petitioner to show cause on against the punishment and on consideration thereof, the impugned order has been passed.

Mr. Azfar Hasan, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has made various submissions to assail the impugned order but as the writ application is to succeed on a very short point, I do not consider it (sic)pedient either to incorporate or answer the same. He submits that the disciplinary authority having not given opportunity to the Petitioner to satisfy him that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is just and proper, itself vitiates the impugned order. the points out that mere giving notice against the proposed punishment without giving opportunity to the Petitioner to satisfy that the finding of exoneration is just ind proper, does not meet the requirement if the principles of natural justice.

Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that in few of the judgment of this Court dated 08.04.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2322 of 2003 (Jagdish Lall v. The Bihar State electricity Board and Ors.), it is difficult for (sic) to persuade this Court to take a con-|(sic) view. In the case of Jagdish Lall (supra), on review of the judgments of the supreme Court and this Court, it has been read as follows:

Undisputedly, Petitioner was not given an opportunity to satisfy the discipIinary authority that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is just and proper but has been given show cause notice against the proposed punishment only, which renders his order illegal in the bye of law.

In the present case, undisputedly, Impugned order has been passed with giving opportunity to the Petitioner to satisfy to the disciplinary authority that the (sic) recorded by the Enquiry Officer is (sic) and proper and on this ground alone, order impugned cannot be allowed to (sic) Respondents, if so advised, may proceed against the Petitioner from a stage consequently to the filing of the Inquiry Report, in accordance with law. In case, the Respondents decide to proceed, they must conclude the departmental proceeding in accordance with law within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Needless to state that in case, the ultimate order goes adverse to the Petitioner, he shall be at liberty to assail the same in accordance with law.

In the result, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.7.2001 (Annexure-7) is quashed with the liberty aforesaid. No costs.