IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7796 of 2010 1. RAMA KANT JHA S/O LATE CHHOTELAL JHA R/O VILL.- KHARIA, P.S.- BARIYARPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER AT PRESENT RETIRED DEPUTY MANAGER FROM GOPALGANJ DISTRICT OFFICE OF BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, VIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, VIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATION, BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, SONE BHAWAN, VIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF OF CLAIMS, BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED 5. DISTRICT MANAGER, BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, GOPALGANJ ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey, Advocate For the Corporation :M/s R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate & Dheeraj Kumar Roy, Advocate 02/ 14.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Food Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, Virchand Patel Path, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), bearing Memo No. 5927 dated 9.7.2009, Annexure-5 to this application under the signature of the Chief of Administration of the Corporation on the ground that Corporation having not adopted the provisions of the Rules, notice under Rule 43(b) of the Rules for recovery of the amount of Rs. 2,09,999.59 as the amount of loss/ defalcation and 18% interest thereon amounting to Rs. 5,73,297.89 cannot be 2 recovered from him. 3. It is evident that the Rules is not applicable to the employees of the Corporation as they are governed by the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 formulated under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Service Conduct and Disciplinary Rules. 4. Counsel for the Corporation, however, refutes the submission. He states that the Rules may not have been adopted by the Corporation, but similar provision has been provided in Rule 26 III A of the Service Conduct and Disciplinary Rules and this Court should read Rule 26 III A of the Service Conduct and Disciplinary Rules in place of Rule 43(b) of the Rules in the impugned order. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the notice dated 9.7.2009, Annexure-5, it is quite apparent that the same has been issued with reference to Rule 43(b) of the Rules, which has not yet been adopted by the Corporation. In the circumstances, notice dated 9.7.2009, Annexure-5 is quashed, however, with liberty to the Corporation that if there is any other provision, which empowers them to initiate departmental proceeding against its retired employees, they are at liberty to do so. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)