Bindeshwari Ram v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Govt
Case Details
1 W.P.(S) No. 902 of 2004 [In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India] Bindeshwari Ram ... ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment,Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Accountant General ( A & E) - II, Bihar & Jharkhand, Patna ... ... ... Respondents For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin,
Legal Reasoning
------------ : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate J.C. to Sr. S.C.II ------------ P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------------ By Court : Aggrieved by order dated 12.08.2003 whereby it has been ordered that 10 % amount from the pension of the petitioner would be deducted in view of the order of recovery for Rs. 72,785/- made by resolution no. 3813 dated 26.07.2003, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Forest Ranger on 03.04.1967 and he superannuated from service with effect from 31.10.2001 from the post of Divisional Forest Officer. It appears that the petitioner was put under suspension on 08.11.1996 and a charge-memo was served upon the petitioner for misconduct committed by him during the period 1987 to 2 1992. The petitioner moved the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4018 of 1996 (R) challenging the order of suspension dated
Decision
08.11.1996. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 29.08.1997 and thereafter, the petitioner moved the Letters Patent Court by filing L.P.A. No. 379 of 1997 (R) which was allowed by order dated 30.09.1997 and order of suspension was quashed. It also appears that the departmental proceeding with respect to the alleged irregular expenditure by the petitioner was not taken to its logical conclusion. There is nothing on record to indicate that after the conclusion of the departmental proceeding an order of punishment was passed against the petitioner. However, by order dated 06.06.1998, the petitioner was again put under suspension for the alleged unauthorized retention of the government quarter. After the superannuation of the petitioner, order dated 12.08.2003 was passed by the respondent withholding 10 % of the pension amount of the petitioner. It appears that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner for unauthorized retention of the government quarter was concluded in imposition of penalty of recovery of penal rent of Rs.72,785/- and in pursuance thereof it was ordered by order dated 12.08.2003 that 10 % of the pension amount of the petitioner would be deducted. In this circumstance, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3.A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3 respondents taking a stand that the charges against the petitioner were serious as he was accused of irregular expenditure of Rs. 22,54,279/- and therefore, he was suspended. The proposed order of penalty was sent to the Union Public Service Commission for its approval however, in the mean time the Union Public Service Commission requested for supply of certain documents which were also sent to the Commission however, no communication has been received from the Commission so far. Again on 06.06.1998, the petitioner was put under suspension for the misconduct of unauthorized retention of the government quarter. An order of penalty for recovery of Rs. 72,785/- was passed and for realising the said amount of penal rent, the order dated 12.08.2003 was passed. 4.By order dated 12.04.2013, the respondents were directed to ascertain the status in so far as it related to the concurrence of the Union Public Service Commission to the proposed punishment dated 11.10.2000 however, nothing has been brought on record. Today, when the matter was heard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State of Jharkhand, has expressed her inability to bring on record the status of the approval by the Union Public Service Commission in so far as the proposed punishment dated 11.10.2000 is concerned. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the deduction / recovery from the pension of the petitioner would not have been made without the final concurrence from the Union Public Service Commission. Merely on anticipation of the grant of approval / concurrence by the Union Public Service Commission, such an order would not have been passed against the petitioner. This is violation of principles of natural justice and in any event, pension is not a bounty. A retired employee has a right to get the pension and it could not have been withdrawn / withheld or even an order of recovery cannot be made from the pension of the employee without following the procedure prescribed under the law. He has further submitted that even the charge of unauthorized retention of the government accommodation levelled against the petitioner is perverse. The petitioner would not have been deprived of his pension on the ground of pendency of the approval of the Union Public Service Commission. 7. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the misconduct against the petitioner has been found proved and an order of penalty for recovery of Rs.72,785/- as penal rent has also been ordered. The proposed order of penalty was sent to the Union Public Service Commission for its approval, however, since the communication from the Union Public Service 5 Commission has not been received, the final order could not be passed 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find merit in the writ petition. Awaiting concurrence of Union Public Service Commission, the order withholding 10% of pension could not have been passed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed however, it is open to the respondent to pass final order and to recover the amount so mentioned in the impugned order dated 12.08.2003, if it receives the final concurrence of the Union Public Service Commission. It is also made clear that the petitioner would also be at liberty to challenge the order, if any, so passed in pursuance of the concurrence so received from the Union Public Service Commission. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 10th May, 2013 Amit/A.F.R.