IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8276 of 2005 ARJUN ROY SON OF LATE PREM LAL ROY, RESIDENT OF B- 10 KRISHI NAGAR, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, NEW SECRETARIATE BUILDING, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT. IN THE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA. 5. THE JOINT SECRETARY (VIGILANCE) TP GOVT. IN THE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S Chandrashekhar, Sr. Adv., Pankaj Kumar Sinha and K.D.Singh, Advocates. For the State : M/S Kumar Alok, SC 19 and satheshwar Prasad, AC to SC-19. ----------- 3/ 09-09-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. By virtue of order dated 9th December, 2004, as contained in Annexure-11, the competent authority has imposed punishment of recovery of Rs.5978/- from the petitioner as well as curtailment of pension by 2% under the purported exercise of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Submission of learned Senior counsel, representing the petitioner, is that the punishment imposed by the respondents is not based on the findings which has been given during the course of enquiry. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is that the sum as alleged has not been misused by the petitioner but has not been properly accounted for in execution of the three schemes. Some excess payment of Rs.1238/- has been made but no finding of gross misconduct has been - 2 - recorded. In terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, therefore, it has not been established that the petitioner has intentionally caused pecuniary loss or committed gross misconduct in execution of the three schemes. It related to tree plantation to be carried in the district where the petitioner was posted. It is also stated that the criminal case which was instituted in the same matter did not go against the petitioner and the same was dropped. If that be so, the respondents ought to do is to recover the said amount, i.e. Rs. 5978/- but to impose punishment withholding of pension to the tune of 2% for the rest of his life may be arbitrary, harsh and devoid of the findings given by the enquiry officer. The so called payment of excess amount as above has already been deducted Learned counsel for the State submits that the enquiry has been held, opportunity has been given and excess payment is one aspect which is not in dispute. The respondent-authorities decided to impose punishment by fixing responsibility upon him. Nature of finding given by the enquiry officer is with regard to some excess payment and the excess amount of Rs. 5978/- has already been recovered . From the finding in the enquiry of the punishment order it does not emerge that the pecuniary loss was due to misconduct or negligence. If that be so withholding 2% pension life long may be arbitrary and harsh. The petitioner has made out a case of the intervention. The impugned order, as contained in Annexure-11, dated 9th December, 2004 is quashed to the extent that 2% pension which has - 3 - been withheld is set aside. So far recovery of Rs. 5978/- is concerned, it is not interfered with. The writ application is allowed as above. BTiwary/ ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )