CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12374 OF 2000 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. TRIPIT SINGH SHARMA, son of late Janki Singh, resident of Village – Khojpura, Police Station – Ekangarsarai, District - Nalanda ------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Upendra Maharathi Institute of Industrial Design, Digha, Patna-800 013. 4. The Administrative Officer, Upendra Maharathi Institute of Industrial Design, Digha, Patna – 13. 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. --------- For the Petitioner : M/S. Arvind Kumar Tiwary and Subhash Kumar. For the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC – 16. For the Accountant General : Mr. J P Karn. P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ****** A K Tripathi, J Vide order dated 30.8.1996 contained in annexure-1 while exercising power under Rule 139 (b) and (c) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 15 per cent of the petitioner’s pension was ordered to be permanently deducted because in the opinion of the authority the service of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. The reason why the respondents were forced to act in the manner because there were supposed to be certain outstanding dues against advance and other heads against the petitioner which he had not settled at the time of his superannuation despite notice and show cause to him in this regard. The director, Industries, therefore, to safeguard the interest of - 2 - the State decided to take action against the petitioner under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. 2. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is well settled by several decisions of this Court that unsatisfactory service record must be established during the period of service of the petitioner based on an enquiry and a finding rendered in this regard. Since nothing of the kind had been done before the petitioner had superannuated, non adjustment of advances by the petitioner may not entitle the respondents to exercise power under Rule 139. 3. From a perusal of the counter affidavit it is apparent that the only reason the impugned order has been passed is that despite several efforts made by the competent authorities as well as adjustment having been made under various heads of dues to which the petitioner was entitled, under retiral head certain outstanding dues still remained. When the petitioner did not settle the same, annexure-1 came to be passed. 4. The Court has no difficulty in accepting submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the power vested in the respondents under Rule 139 is not to recover government dues after retirement of an employee. Since a punishment of the kind has a lasting effect upon the petitioner, therefore, the same can only be passed in accordance with the procedure laid down and the interpretation given in this regard by the various decisions of this Court. - 3 - 5. The order contained in annexure-1 is patently illegal and the same is quashed but the petitioner is hereby directed that he shall co-operate with the authorities and would settle the accounts in terms of the outstanding dues which have been indicated in the order dated 11th July, 1996 which has been brought on record as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. If the account is not settled by the petitioner then it will be open to the respondents to recover the balance amount from the pension due to the petitioner from the time it has been sanctioned in his favour. 6. The writ application is allowed in the above terms. There will be no order, however, as to cost. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Patna High Court: The 18th November, 2008. R K Pathak.