LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1209 OF 2003 --------------- Against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1646 of 2000 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. ------------ 1. Bihar State Electricity Board, through the Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, the Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, the Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Director of Accounts, the Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna ----- ------ Respondents ---- Appellants. Versus Ravi Kumar Verma, son of late Dr. Kishori Sharan Verma, resident of Mohalla-Rampur, P.S. & P.O. Rampur, District- Gaya ---- Writ Petitioner ---- Respondent. -------------- For the Appellants : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh & Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma. For the Respondent: Mr. Nageshwar Prasad Sinha. -------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH -------------- S.K.Katriar,J. The Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as „the Board‟) has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and raises a grievance with respect to the judgment dated 23.10.2003, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1646 of 2000 (Ravi Kumar Verma Vrs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & 2 Ors.), whereby the Board has been directed to make full payment of the post-retirement benefits admissible to the writ petitioner, in spite notwithstanding of pendency of the departmental proceeding and the vigilance case against him. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The writ petitioner superannuated from the services of the Board with effect from 31.3.1997, while holding the post of Chief Engineer. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was placed under suspension by order dated 31.3.1997 (after noon). As per Board‟s letter no. 1273, dated 9.4.1997, the order of suspension was revoked without prejudice to the departmental proceeding and the criminal case pending against him. A major portion of post-retirement benefits were paid to him, but a few items like gratuity, leave encashment, and 10% of the pension were not paid to him in view of the pendency of the proceedings. It is relevant to state that a criminal case has been registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No.11 of 1996, where the writ petitioner is facing trial and has not so far concluded. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with the direction to the Board to make full payment of the post-retirement dues 3 admissible to the petitioner. It was observed that departmental proceeding may be concluded within a reasonable time. 3. The Board has preferred this appeal praying that the departmental proceeding has been concluded and 10% of pension has been with-held. He further submits that in view of the losses caused to the Board, the remaining amount may be allowed to be withheld which may abide the result of the criminal trial. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us on a perusal of the order dated 3.4.2007, that the following punishment has been inflicted to him: “(i) Deduction of 10% pension on permanent basis. (ii) No payment beyond subsistence allowances for the period of suspension.” Rule 27 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, defines pension and includes gratuity. In that view of the matter, the Board will be entitled to deduct 10% of the monthly pension and gratuity since the date of superannuation. It shall be 4 entitled to recover the amount which has not so far been recovered from the dues of the petitioner. In view of the pendencny of the criminal trial for a long time, we direct that the balance of the amount may be released which shall abide the result of the criminal trial. 5. We wish to make it clear that validity of the departmental proceeding is not the subject matter of the writ petition and the appeal before us. Secondly, the present order should not be taken to be affirmance of the views expressed by the learned Single Judge on the questions of law discussed by him. 6. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. J.N. Singh, J. I agree. High Court Patna, Dated 28th July, 2010 Vinay/ N.A.F.R. ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (J. N. Singh, J.)