Letters Patent Appeal No.686 OF 2001 ---- Against the order dated 26.6.2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.4159 of 1001. ----- THE BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORTION through its Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Ltd, Patna-- Appellant Versus BAIKUNTH TIWARY, son of Late Mathura Tiwary, R/O Mohalla, P.S.Barbigha, Distt-Sheikhpura- Respondents For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Verma For the respondent : Mr. S. Azim, Advocates P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN --------- S.K.Katriar Jyoti Saran,JJ. Heard Mr. P.K.Verma for the appellant, and Mr. S.Azim for the respondent. 2. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the appellant Corporation, and is aggrieved by the order dated 26.6.2001, passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.4159 of 2001 (Baikunth Tiwary Vs. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation), whereby the writ petition was allowed and the punishment order passed by appellant has been quashed. The learned Single Judge has held that no power is found in the Regulations of the Corporation, which provides for any punishment to its employee after his superannuation. 2 3. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The writ petitioner was a Class III employee of the Corporation. He was placed under suspension by order dated 15.3.2000, for unauthorized absence and was charge-sheeted by order dated 8.6.2001, wherein the following charges were levelled against him. A. Did not discharge duty faithfully, and B. Unauthorisedly absented from 25.11.1999 to 25.12.1999 in spite of rejection of leave application by Head Quarters on 1.12.1999. 4. This was followed by second charge vide memo dated 24.6.2000, whereby allegations were framed against him for commission of gross financial irregularities, embezzlement, and mis-utilisation of Corporation’s fund. The allegations comprise of eight charges. The writ petitioner filed his written statement, fully participated in the departmental proceeding and examined all the witnesses, who was still in harness, and superannuated from the services of the Corporation with effect from 31.1.2001. 5. The learned Enquiry Officer submitted his joint inquiry report dated 5.5.2001, wherein the charges against the writ petitioner were held to have been proved. The learned Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 8.5.2001, whereby he inflicted the following punishments on the writ petitioner. 3 “(i) The loss caused by the proceedee to the Corporation in respect of Rs.42,172/- be deducted as per the calculation sheet attached from his post-retiral dues, (ii) 20 per cent of the gratuity of the proceedee is ordered to be deducted, and (iii) No other payment should be made to the proceedee in respect to the period under suspension except for the suspension allowance paid to him and legally due.” 6. The employee-writ petitioner challenged the order of punishment by filing C.W.J.C.No.4159 of 2001, and the learned Single Judge has allowed the same by the impugned order setting aside the order of punishment on the sole ground that no power is available to the Corporation to inflict any order of punishment in pursuance of a proceeding after the retirement of its employees. 7. While assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Corporation had passed a resolution long time ago adopting the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules, which, inter alia, incorporates Rule 43 and Rule 139. The corporation took the stand before the learned Single Judge that, as in the case of employees of the State Government, the departmental proceeding is permissible even after the superannuation under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rule, similar powers must be deemed to have been vested with the Corporation with regard to its 4 employees as contained in the resolution of the Corporation dated 2.5.1959, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge considered the submission and found that the Corporation has framed Rules of its own with regard to payment of gratuity etc. Taking into account the entire materials on record, the learned Single Judge did not find it possible to accept the contention that the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules continues to govern the employees of the Corporation and we are also in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by it. 8. The Corporation did not choose to place on record either before the learned Single Judge or before this Court materials on the merits of the matter. It is, therefore, not possible for us to hold whether or not the inquiry was properly conducted, and whether or not the evidence recorded by him supported the charges. Therefore, there is no material before us to connect the inquiry report with the order of punishment. 9. There is yet another aspect of the matter. There is no material on record to enable us to come to any conclusion on the findings of the Enquiry officer, and it is not possible to examine the reasons recorded in support of the charges. We are, therefore, not inclined 5 to review. The Corporation has acted negligently in so far as the merit of the case is concerned. Therefore, we would also not like to set aside the punishment order passed against the writ petitioner. 10. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Patna High court, Dated,20th August,2009 NAFR/ ahk/ (S.K.Katriar,J.) (Jyoti Saran,J.)